APR  2'^  1924 


Division     I    / 
Section      •  ' 


REV.  ISAAC  N.  WYCKOFF.  D.D. 


N>' 


LANDMARKS     ^^^ 

of  the 

REFORMED  FATHERS 

OR 

What  Dr.  Van  Raalte's  People  Believed 


WILLIAM  O.  VAN  ETCK 


APR  ;^>J  19 


-^?i?6ICAL  SB 


"Remove  not  Ihe  ancient  Landmark  which 
thg  fathers  have  set." 

Prov.    22:28 


Faitn  of  our  fatKers,  living  still, 
In  spite  of  dungeon,  fire  and  sword. 
O  how  our  hearts  beat  high  with  joy. 
Whene'er  we  hear  that  glorious  word  : 
Faith  of  our  fathers,  holy  faith, 
We  vJill  be  true  to  thee  till  death." 


THE  REFORiMED   PRESS 

Eerdmans-Sevensma  Co. 

Publishers 

GRAND  RAPIDS.  MICH. 


•S-GRAVENHAGE 
MARTINUS    NIJHOFF 


Copyrighted  by 

Wm.  O.  Van  Eyck 

1922 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS 


1.  Introduction 7 

2.  Removing  the  Under-Brush 17 

3.  The  Voice  of  the  "Mother  Church"  in  Holland 39 

4.  As  a  Lily  Among  Thorns 61 

5.  The  Thunders  of  Dort 71 

6.  Cor  Ecclesiae 88 

7.  The  Church  of  God 101 

8.  The  Local  Church 112 

9.  What  is  a  Reformed  Church? 132 

10.  The  Soul  of  the  Church 142 

11.  The  Police  Rules  of  God's  House 147 

12.  The  Hackensack   Insurrection 166 

13.  Dr.  Milledoler  onthe  Secession  of  1822 209 

14.  Report  on  the  Secession  of  1822 217 

15.  General  Synod  Holds  the  Balance-Rod 230 

16.  Far  Hence  Unto  the  Gentiles 237 

17.  Backsight  and  Foresight 244 

18.  Tidings  from  Afar 250 

19.  What  the  Reformed  Church  Knew  about  Holland     257 

20.  Sons  of  Thunder..... 267 

21.  The  Reformed  Church  a  Rock 274 

22.  A  Beacon  Light  in  the  Night  of  Error 281 

23.  A  Photograph  of  the  Church  in  1850 286 

24.  The  Reformed  Church  Ahead  of  the  Hollanders 

in  the  West 290 


I.    INTRODUCTION 


IN  THIS  work  I  am  not  attacking  the  several  local 
Christian  Reformed,  or  Seceder  churches  and 
their  members,  but  I  am  attacking  not  a  little  the 
connection  in  which  they  stand.  These  churches  are 
autonomous  plants  of  the  great  Church  in  spite  of  the 
irregular  and  revolutionary  character  of  the  organiza- 
tion with  which  they  were  affiliated  since  the  secession 
of  1857.  This  connection  is,  however,  not  the  essen- 
tial part  of  these  churches,  and,  despite  their  govern- 
ment and  their  irregular  origin,  they  must  still  be 
judged  as  other  churches  are.  But  whatever  the  rather 
carefully  trained  people  of  the  Secession  Church  of 
the  Netherlands,  who  immigrated  to  America  since 
1880,  have  made  of  the  Secession  Church  in  our  midst, 
and  however  much  the  successors  of  the  Seceders  of 
1857  have  been  obliged  to  repudiate  by  their  acts  that 
Secession  of  1857,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  insist  that 
the  writers  who  are  still  maintaining  the  justifiable- 
ness  of  that  secession,  while  surrendering  its  main 
grounds,  be  called  to  account  for  their  failure  to  per- 
ceive and  acknowledge  honestly  that  the  true  trend 
leads  more  and  more  toward  vindicating  Dr.  Van 
Raalte  and  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  as  against  that 
Secession. 

The  Seceder  writings,  beginning  with  the  Brochure 
of  1869,  and  ending  with  Dr.  Beets'  Zestig  Jaren  van 
Strijd  en  Zegen  (1918),  are  of  such  a  nature  that  they 
are  of  no  value  whatever  as  evidence  to  show  the  val- 
idity of  the  Secession  of  1857,  for  they  contain  simply 
the  statements  and  claims  of  those  Seceders — claims 
unsubstantiated  by  correct  Reformed  doctrine  and 
practice.  The  truth,  therefore,  of  those  writings  is 
involved  with  that  of  the  Secession  itself,  and  both  are 
consequently  in  issue.     In  a  sense,  what  Reformed 


8  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

writers  like  Revs.  Zwemer  and  De  Bey,  and  Rev.  N.  H. 
Dosker  have  written  against  that  Secession  may  also 
be  considered  too  closely  identified  with  the  schism, 
and  I  have  therefore  not  used  their  evidence  and  claims, 
except  where  they  appeal  to  correct  Reformed  Stand- 
ards and  authorities.  Again,  as  positive  evidence  with 
which  to  prove  their  case,  the  Seceder  Brochure 
(1869),  the  Zamenspraak  (1874),  Hemke's  Rechtsbe- 
staan  (1894),  and  Beets'  Zestig  Jar  en  are  decidedly 
worthless ;  and  more  than  that,  they  contain  very  dam- 
aging admissions  against  their  cause,  as  will  be  shown 
at  the  proper  time.  These  writers  practically  claim 
that  the  Secession  of  1857  and  the  assertions  in  its 
favor  by  the  men  of  that  day,  prove  its  correctness. 
No  one,  however,  denies  that  that  schism  actually  took 
place,  and  that  certain  allegations  were  made  to  sus- 
tain it.  These,  however,  are  not  the  evidence ;  in  fact, 
they  prove  nothing  except  that  the  schism  took  place. 
The  real  issue  is  now,  and  always  was,  whether  the 
reasons  assigned  for  that  secession  were  tenable  and 
valid  as  correct  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice;  and 
this  puts  in  issue,  not  exactly  what  is  now  in  all  de- 
tails Reformed  doctrine  and  practice,  but  (1),  what, 
was  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice  in  and  before 
1857,  and  (2),  whether  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
deviated  fundamentally  therefrom  at  that  time.  In 
order,  however,  to  prove  or  disprove  these  two,  we 
must  appeal  to  Reformed  Standards  of  the  Reforma- 
tion times,  and  to  the  doctrines  and  practice  as  exem- 
plified in  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Scotland  and 
France,  and  in  the  Netherlands;  and  with  the  latter 
we  must  compare  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
America,  and  especially,  and  particularly,  and  thor- 
oughly, the  Seceders  of  1857  in  Michigan.  The  Seces- 
sion of  1857  and  the  claims  advanced  in  favor  of  it,  are 
not  the  evidence  or  touchstone  by  which  to  judge  that 
movement;  for  so  long  as  both  are  themselves  the 
matter  in  issue,  they  must  themselves  be  judged  by 
Reformed  doctrine  and  practice.  Moreover,  we  must 
judge  that  Secession  by  what  was  admittedly  Reformed 


INTRODUCTION  9 

at  that  time,  and  not  judge  Reformed  doctrine  and 
polity  by  what  the  few  among  the  seceders  in  old  Hol- 
land, and  the  few  seceders  of  1857,  claimed  was  Re- 
formed. The  latter,  however  erroneous,  seems  to  be 
the  favorite  method  of  the  Seceder  writers  mentioned. 

I  have  consulted  all  the  Seceder  publications,  and 
have  made  a  joint  abstract  of  their  claims  and  evi- 
dence, and  I  was  surprised  indeed  to  find  that  they  all 
ignored  what  the  Reformed  authorities  say  directly 
under  the  head  of  Secession.  These  Seceders  either 
take  for  granted  that  their  readers  fully  understand 
the  nature  of  the  Church  and  the  proper  application  of 
Church  Rules,  or  they  purposely  fail  to  explain  in  their 
books  these  two  important  matters.  But  upon  a  closer 
view  of  the  subject,  it  is  no  wonder  that  western  Se- 
ceders always  appeal  to  the  few  exceptions  among  the 
Seceders  in  the  Netherlands  and  to  the  statement  of 
the  Seceders  of  1857,  instead  of  having  recourse  to 
Reformed  authorities;  for  when  I  began  to  test  the 
whole  matter  of  the  Secession  of  1857  and  its  apolo- 
gists, by  writers  like  Calvin  and  Brakel,  I  found  no- 
where in  all  ecclesiastical  history  such  a  strong 
arraignment  of  the  Secession  of  1857  as  that  furnished 
by  the  seceding  Church  at  Graafschap,  Mich.,  itself, 
in  1857.  Instead  of  making  out  a  case  against  the 
Reformed  Church,  Graafschap  wrote  the  death  war- 
rant of  its  own  cause  by  returning  to  the  wildness  of 
the  Dutch  Secession  instead  of  to  Dort.  It  is  high  time 
that  the  task  of  writing  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 
the  western  Hollanders  be  taken  from  the  hands  of 
clergymen,  so  long  as  they  insist  on  applying  the  ex- 
ceptional and  one-sided  statements  of  extremists,  in- 
stead of  those  of  recognized  Reformed  authorities,  to 
the  Reformed  Church  of  the  East,  and  so  long  as  they 
continue  to  darken  counsel  with  technical  and  schol- 
astic terms  instead  of  going  back  to  actual  history 
and  first  principles. 

These  Seceder  writers  have  done  worse ;  they  failed 
to  investigate  properly  the  history  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church;  they  ignored  almost  entirely  the  rec- 


10  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ords  of  the  Colonial  Churches  before  1857,  and  they 
have  actually  falsified  the  history  of  1847-57;  and 
this  to  such  an  extent  that  for  years,  in  common  with 
many  others,  and  with  all  Seceders,  I  took  for  granted 
that  the  Seceder  claims  of  1857  against  hymns,  etc.,  in 
the  Reformed  Church,  really  constituted  a  case  of 
deviation  from  Reformed  doctrine,  and  a  breach  of 
the  Rules  of  Dort.  But  an  appeal  to  the  Reformed 
Standards,  and  to  the  history  of  the  Churches  of  the 
era  of  Dort,  revealed  the  fact  that  the  Seceders  of  1857 
knew  neither  ivhat  tvas  Reformed  nor  ivhat  is  meant 
bij  the  ivords  ''Rules  of  Dort."  I  also  acquired  a  lurk- 
ing suspicion  that  many  of  the  "Colonists"  who  re- 
mained faithful  to  the  Reformed  Church  in  1857,  did 
not  know  too  much  about  real  Reformed  doctrine  and 
government.  And  it  was  for  these  reasons  that  I  took 
pains  to  consult  the  great  Reformed  writers,  so  as  to 
ascertain  what  Reformed  doctrine  really  was,  and 
what  the  limits  and  scope  of  Church  Rules  actually 
were.  A  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the  Church,  of 
the  very  limited  application  of  Church  Rules,  and  of 
the  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Europe  and 
in  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  are  first  requisites  for 
those  who  presume  to  judge  the  ecclesiastical  affairs 
of  the  "Colony,"  and  it  will  therefore  readily  be  seen 
why  I  have  devoted  so  much  space  to  apparently  in- 
troductory matters  such  as  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  Church  Rules.  With- 
out a  rather  accurate  knowledge  of  first  principles 
like  these,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  whole  mat- 
ter at  issue. 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  during  my  investigations, 
I  very  soon  perceived  that  the  real  conservative  branch 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the  world  was  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  the  East,  and  not  the  western 
branch,  nor  the  western  Seceder  Church,  for  both  of 
the  latter  were  for  years  too  much  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  terrible  reaction  which  had  shaken  the 
Netherlands  some  years  before,  to  be  able  to  see 
clearly  and  conservatively.    The  Seceders  in  the  Neth- 


INTRODUCTION  11 

erlands  keep  shouting  to  us  from  across  the  Atlantic : 
"Keep  up  the  autonomy  of  the  local  churches."  The 
organ  of  our  western  Seceders,  De  Wachter,  in  its 
issue  of  Jan.  25,  1922,  declared  that  "there  are  true 
Christians  among  the  Free  Masons."  Both  these  facts 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  knew  so  well,  fifty  years 
ago,  that  she  deliberately  refused  to  impair  the  auto- 
nomy of  her  local  churches  by  taking  the  matter  of 
discipline,  even  in  the  case  of  Free  Masonry,  away 
from  the  local  churches,  because  it  involved  an  infrac- 
tion of  the  strict  rules  of  discipline  disclosed  in  the 
New  Testament.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  from  be- 
ing conservative  and  Reformed,  the  Secession  Church 
of  the  West  was  from  the  start  so  radical  and  reac- 
tionary, that  in  doctrine  she  was  for  years  actually  in 
the  Antinomian  camp,  and  in  her  polity  she  actually 
went  back  to  Rome  and  the  State  Church  of  Holland. 
Those  Seceders  of  1857  claimed  that  they  were  recon- 
stituting "The  True  Reforaied  Church,"  de  Ware  Ge- 
reformeerde  Kerk.  To  make  that  claim  good,  how- 
ever, they  have  to  appeal  successfully  to  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  practice ;  but,  so  far  from  having  done  this, 
they  are  today  actually  insisting  upon  continued 
separation  from  the  Reformed  Church,  while  recog- 
nizing that  Reformed  Dutch  Church  as  a  true  Re- 
formed Church  of  Christ,  and  while  undermining  and 
surrendering  their  own  foundations  laid  in  1857 — a 
strange  and  incongruous  situation  indeed. 

I  make  no  apology  for  writing  on  a  subject  hereto- 
fore considered  the  special  gunning-grounds  or  game- 
preserve  of  clergymen.  The  subject  was  not  one  of 
choice,  but  it  was  forced  upon  me  by  the  slip-shod  and 
incorrect  statements  of  incompetent  writers,  who  with 
their  claims  of  church  reformation  since  1857,  have 
endeavored  to  set  up  rather  impure  and  incomplete 
standards  of  doctrine  and  polity,  have  laid  a  false 
glamor  over  the  schism  of  1857,  and  have  actually 
attempted  to  brand  the  fathers  of  1849-50  as  heretics 
and  deceivers.  It  is  regrettable  that  some  one  not 
hampered  too  much  by  environment,  or  not  so  nar- 


12  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

rowed  by  training  and  association  as  most  of  the 
black-cloth  writers  are,  has  not  long  ago,  applied,  with 
a  merciless  logic,  the  search-light  of  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  polity  to  that  schism  of  1857.  Historical  re- 
search is  open  to  all,  and  it  is  hoped  that  abler  hands 
than  mine  will  take  up  this  task  thoroughly  and  ex- 
haustively. 

Again,  I  say  that  I  am  not  warring  with  the  Chris- 
tian Reformed  people,  their  local  churches,  their  re- 
ligious work,  their  many  excellent  publications;  and 
especially  not  with  their  great  interest  in  the  old  re- 
ligious literature  of  Holland.  But  these  are  not  in 
issue.  The  only  question  is  whether  the  seccession  of 
1857,  and  the  resulting  separation  of  these  people  from 
the  Reformed  Church,  is  right.  That  is  the  problem 
before  us.  In  my  attempt  to  discuss  that  problem,  the 
separate  existence  of  the  western  Seceders,  and  the  Se- 
ceder  writers  defending  that  separation,  will  get  what 
they  have  had  "coming  to  them"  for  a  long  time,  for 
the  whole  secession  and  the  claims  of  its  defenders  are 
based,  not  on  correct  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice, 
but  on  the  extreme  positions  and  assertions  of  a  few 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Secession  in  the  Netherlands 
after  1834.  Almost  all  of  the  arguments  advanced  by 
the  Seceder  writers  are  so  unfair,  and  some  of  those 
of  Dr.  Beets  are  so  puerile,  that  I  have  considered 
them  rather  thoroughly  in  another  series  of  papers,  in 
which  the  principles  enunciated  in  the  present  series 
will  be  applied  directly  to  the  schism  of  1857  and  the 
later  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  "Colony." 

I  have  endeavored  to  avoid  the  use  of  technical 
terms  and  theological  nomenclature,  and  to  reduce  the 
whole  matter  of  those  secessions  to  terms  of  common 
history,  so  that  people  might  understand  the  question ; 
and,  the  reader  will  also  notice  that  throughout  these 
papers  I  base  every  important  statement  on  recog- 
nized authorities,  whether  synods  or  writers,  so  that 
it  is  these  authorities  (not  myself)  that  are  actually 
speaking.  And,  for  that  reason  such  criticism  as  e.  g., 
the  one  Dr.  Beets  made  on  Dr.  Dosker's  application  of 


INTRODUCTION  13 

the  word  "demoralization"  to  the  anti-masonry  agi- 
tation, as  a  "pracht-uitdrukking"  (a  de  luxe  expres- 
sion), "applied  to  efforts  for  church  reformation," 
count  for  nothing,  for  it  is  not  what  the  Seceders  of 
1857  intended  to  do,  but  what  they  actually  did,  that 
forms  the  question  at  issue.  Intent  to  reform  is  not 
always  the  same  as  reform,  and  calling  secession  re- 
formation does  not  in  itself  prove  it  to  be  anjrthing 
but  deformation.  Facts  and  evidence  are  needed  to 
prove  reformation,  for  reformation  by  rhetoric  mere- 
ly is  placing  strange  fire  on  the  altars  of  the  Lord. 

Wrapping  oneself  in  an  imaginary  cloak  of  sanc- 
tity, with  the  claim  that  the  Secession  of  1857  was  the 
union  of  the  select — the  elect — in  the  Colony,  and  that 
criticism  thereof  is  the  equivalent  of  "evil-speaking," 
evidently  proves  nothing.  Dr.  Beets,  on  p.  102  of  his 
Zestig  Jaren,  after  calling  that  secession  a  matter  of 
sacred  duty,  etc.,  and  "Honi  soit  qui  mal  y  pense," — 
Evil  be  to  him  who  evil  thinks, — further  says,  "Cruel 
and  arbitrary  is  he  who  thinks  otherwise."  But  we 
shall  see  who  were  the  first  to  think  evil  in  1852,  1853, 
1856  and  1857,  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  partic- 
ularly of  Dr.  Van  Raalte,  without  just  cause,  and  we 
shall  see  what  recognized  Reformed  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice say  about  such  evil-thinking. 

Dr.  Steffens  once  said  that  he  refused  to  speak  fur- 
ther of  the  work  of  Rev.  Van  Den  Bosch,  "lest  he 
should  inflict  deep  wounds" ;  but  it  is  the  duty  of  those 
who  attempt  to  write  history  to  tell  the  truth,  regard- 
less of  the  deep  wounds  they  may  inflict.  And  let 
none  of  us  flatter  himself  with  the  idea  that  those 
western  Hollanders,  and  particularly  the  Seceders  of 
1857,  were  the  perfection  of  holiness  and  piety,  or  that 
they  alone  knew  what  was  Reformed.  A  glance  within 
the  veil  which  has  for  years  obscured  the  religious  life 
of  our  western  people,  reveals  the  fact  that  the  Seces- 
sion of  1857  was  largely  the  embodiment  of  evil-think- 
ing, which  appealed  to  the  prejudices  of  very  common 
people.  The  whole  history  of  that  Secession  shows 
that  it  is  not  free  from  the  continuation  of  appeals  to 


14  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  same  feelings.  During  the  eighties,  Rev.  Hemkes, 
at  the  time  when  there  was  a  great  movement  for 
hymns  in  his  Church,  admitted  this,  when  he  said, 
"our  people  are  not  yet  ripe  for  it," — an  admission  that 
people  can  and  may  be  ripe  for  hymns,  as  the  Reformed 
Church  was  years  ago,  and  that  therefore  secession 
on  that  account  was  simply  an  appeal  to  unripe  peo- 
ple as  against  those  who  were  ripe.  The  history  of 
the  Secession  Church  contains  similar  surrenders. 

Historians  do  not  inflict  deep  wounds  without  pro- 
vocation given  by  actors  who  build  on  erroneous  foun- 
dations, and  if  what  is  said  in  this  volume  should  per- 
chance, inflict  wounds,  it  is  not  improper  to  give  notice 
in  advance  that  in  what  follows  in  another  volume, 
the  work  of  the  leaders  of  that  secession  will  not  be 
handled  so  gently,  but  that  some  consideration  by  the 
Seceders  of  their  ecclesiastical  emergency  remedies 
and  hospitals  will  not  be  superfluous. 

The  time  to  rip  the  veneer  off  our  Colonial  Church 
history  is  here,  and  though  it  may  involve  the  inflic- 
tion of  many  wounds,  it  must  be  done,  in  order  to  heal 
the  greater  and  more  dangerous  wound  inflicted  in 
1857.  There  is  no  force  in  soft  words  which  fail  to 
hit  the  mark.  It  is  time  to  call  things  by  their  right 
names.  '  'f. 

While  in  my  investigations  I  occasionally  experi- 
enced a  strange  unwillingness  to  assist  me  with  docu- 
ments and  files,  my  thanks  are  due  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Blekkink  of  the  Western  Theological  Seminarj%  Hol- 
land, Mich.,  for  the  unlimited  use  of  the  excellent 
Seminary  Library;  to  Dr.  Gerhard  De  Jonge,  of  Zee- 
land,  Mich.,  for  access  to  the  minutes  and  files  of  the 
Classis  of  Holland;  to  Dr.  Henry  Lockwood,  of  East 
Millstone,  N.  J.,  for  a  copy  of  the  report  and  sermon 
of  Dr.  Milledoler  on  the  Secession  of  1822;  and,  to 
Prof.  John  B.  Nykerk  of  Hope  College  for  the  loan  of 
several  important  works  bearing  on  the  Secessions  in 


INTRODUCTION  15 

the  Netherlands  and  in  America.  Dr.  Nykerk's 
opinion  about  the  English  used  by  the  writer,  if  ex- 
pressed, would,  no  doubt,  be  unprintable,  but  without 
his  encouragement  and  expert  advice  on  certain  fea- 
tures of  importance  in  this  work,  these  papers  would 
probably  not  have  seen  the  light. 

WM.  0.  VAN  EYCK. 
Holland,  Mich.,  Feb.  22,  1922. 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  17 


II.     REMOVING  THE  UNDER-BRUSH 


THE  papers  in  this  volume  are  merely  an  introduc- 
tion, or  rather,  an  introduction  to  an  introduc- 
tion. The  vi^riter,  in  his  quest  for  reliable  in- 
formation on  the  general  history  of  the  Hollanders 
who  settled  in  America  since  1846,  found  the  ecclesi- 
astical element  so  fundamental,  that  no  one  should  be 
permitted  to  write  on  that  history  without  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  church  history  involved.  But,  in 
order  to  understand  that  church  history,  a  knowledge 
of  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  Netherlands,  of  the 
secession  from  that  church  in  1834,  of  the  founding  of 
the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  and  of  the  doctrines, 
worship,  and  discipline  of  these  several  churches,  is 
quite  indispensable.  The  general  history  of  the  Hol- 
landers in  America  was  therefore  the  main  object  of 
inquiry,  with  their  church  history  as  introductory, 
while  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the 
Netherlands  and  in  the  East,  with  their  doctrines, 
etc.,  was  introductory  to  the  whole. 

The  writer  found  the  confusion  and  errors  in  the 
history  of  those  western  Hollanders,  as  lately  written, 
so  great,  that  the  whole  narrative  is  beginning  to  bear 
a  false  character.  The  battles  fought  among  them  on 
doctrinal  points  and  Church  Rules,  resulting  in  the 
secessions  of  1857  and  later,  showed  such  a  radical, 
revolutionary  departure  from  the  Fathers  of  the 
Eighty  Years  War  and  of  Dort,  that  it  was  found 
necessary  to  write  up  in  general  terms  the  proper  set- 
ting of  the  doctrine  of  Predestination,  the  nature  of 
the  Church,  universal,  denominational  and  local,  the 
position  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  especially  the  na- 
ture, limits  and  scope  of  Church  Orders  or  Rules. 


18  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Without  a  correct  restatement  of  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformed  Church  as  shown  from  Re- 
formation times  to  the  present,  shorn  of  the  question- 
able varnish  laid  thereon  by  some  of  the  seceders  in 
Holland  and  America,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  the 
arguments  of  western  writers,  pro  and  con,  do  not 
appeal  to  the  average  reader,  because  they  are  largely 
unintelligible.  A  true  statement  of  the  proper  place  of 
doctrines  like  Predestination  and  of  Church  Rules  as 
maintained  in  Reformed  Churches  from  the  Synod  of 
Wesel  to  Dort,  and  in  the  history  of  the  churches  of 
Dort,  and  as  explained  by  scholars  like  Voetius,  De 
Moor,  Turretin,  Van  Prinsterer,  and  Kuyper,  alone 
can  reveal  the  fact  that  the  secession  of  1857,  in  Michi- 
gan, was  largely  based  on  error,  caused  by  ignorance 
of  what  is  really  "Reformed,"  as  Dr.  Van  Raalte  also, 
in  1857,  actually  said  it  was. 

Any  writer  who  takes,  e.  g.,  the  six  reasons  for 
secession  assigned  by  the  Church  at  Graafschap  in 
1857,  as  constituting,  under  Reformed  doctrine  and 
practice,  a  sufficient  cause  for  secession,  as  well  as  the 
writer  who  continues  to  defend  those  "six  reasons"  at 
this  late  day,  is  certainly  not  at  all  qualified  to  write 
truthful  history.  When  people  secede  from  a  Re- 
formed Church  on  account  of  hymns,  Sunday  Schools, 
criticism  of  the  Dutch  Secession  of  1834,  recognition 
of  other  denominations,  etc.,  as  happened  in  1857,  it 
is  evident  that  a  great  mistake  was  made  somewhere 
and  sometime  at  the  base  of  that  secession. 

That  great  mistake  by  the  Seceders  was  based  on 
several  errors  stated  as  follows:  1.  The  notion  that 
Predestination  must  be  emphasized,  regardless  of  the 
dangers  of  Antinomianism  lurking  there,  while  the 
observance  of  discretion  and  moderation  at  all  times 
in  the  discussion  of  that  subject  was  the  rule  in  Re- 
formed Churches  since  the  Reformation.  Many  se- 
ceders both  in  Holland  and  America  forgot  this  rule. 

2.  The  notion  that  the  Synod  of  Dort  stereotyped 
Church  Rules  for  all  time,  and  that, — in  spite  of  Dort's 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  19 

own  postulate  (Rule  86),  that  these  Rules  "may"  and 
"ought  to  be  changed," — variations  and  changes  were 
ipso  facto  errors.  This  was  in  1857  one  of  the  greatest 
mistakes  the  Seceders  made. 

3.  That  the  "Holland  Colonists"  of  1847,  or  the 
majority  of  them,  or  even  a  small  minority  of  them, 
held  such  seceder  ideas,  and  that,  consequently.  Van 
Raalte  and  the  other  leaders  misrepresented  the  "col- 
onists" in  the  matter  of  the  union  with  the  Reformed 
Church  in  1850.  The  truth,  however,  is  that  almost 
without  exception  Van  Raalte  and  his  people  had  the 
right  conception  of  the  equilibrium  and  co-ordination 
of  doctrines,  and  of  the  limited  scope  of  Church  Rules, 
as  maintained  for  years  in  the  Church  of  Holland,  as 
well  as  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey.  The  claims, 
therefore,  that  the  few  who  stood  for  the  inviolability 
of  the  Rules  of  1619  and  the  over-emphasizing  of  the 
doctrine  of  election,  in  the  Colony  before  1857,  repre- 
sented the  sentiment  of  the  "Colony"  is  simon-pure 
imagination ;  and  the  claim  that  Van  Raalte  and  others 
misled  their  people  is  an  invention  of  later  days,  as  is 
also  shown  by  the  fact  that  very  few  in  the  "Colony" 
before  1882  paid  the  least  attention  to  the  claims  of 
the  seceder  leaders. 

4.  The  idea  that  the  old  Church  in  Holland,  during 
the  times  of  Brakel  and  Lodenstein,  was  the  acme  of 
perfection,  and  that  what  Brakel  and  others  said 
against  secession  applied  only  in  case  of  a  pure  church 
like  the  Netherlands  Reformed  Church  of  their  days. 
The  historical  facts,  however,  are  that  Brakel  wrote 
his  Reasonable  Religion  for  the  people  of  Holland,  and 
while  he  says.  Vol.  1,  p.  596,  that  "the  Reformed 
Church  is  the  only  true  Church,"  he  plainly  applied 
this  to  Holland,  as  against  the  other  denominations 
and  sects  there,  for  on  p.  603  he  recognizles  true 
churches  in  other  nations,  etc.,  when  he  says,  "The 
Lord  has  in  other  States  pastors,  families,  and  indi- 
viduals who  serve  him  faithfully."  Brakel's  criticisms 
are  therefore  mainly  directed  against  his  own  Church ; 


20  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

but  in  spite  of  these  strictures,  he  was  absolutely  op- 
posed to  seceding  from  her.  Even  Lodenstein,  in  about 
1660,  said  it  would  sometime  come  to  a  secession  in  his 
Church  on  account  of  doctrinal  errors,  but  Lodenstein 
was  unalterably  opposed  to  seceding  from  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  his  day.  However,  the  complaints 
of  these  and  other  divines  of  that  day,  like  Teelink  and 
Voetius,  who  held  several  meetings  in  which  they  dis- 
cussed the  necessity  of  reforming  their  Church,  show 
that  the  Dutch  Church  of  Holland  in  those  days  was 
not  so  pure  and  undefiled.  And  there  is  not  much 
question  that,  if  a  careful  inquiry  were  made  into 
the  subject,  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  in  1650- 
1750,  would  be  found  to  have  been  not  as  well  ordered, 
nor  as  faithful  to  the  old  doctrines,  as  was  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  America  in  1857.  But  of  these 
things  the  Seceders  of  1857  knew  little  or  nothing.  In 
morality  and  decency  the  old  Church  in  Holland,  in- 
cluding leaders  like  Prince  Maurice,  was  far  below  the 
American  Reformed  Church  of  1850. 

5.  The  notion  that  the  secession  in  America  in 
1857  and  later  was  like  the  secession  of  1834  in  Hol- 
land. The  truth  is  that  during  that  secession  of  1834 
and  later,  not  only  was  the  doctrine  of  election  ignored 
in  the  State  Church,  but  some  of  the  leaders  denied  and 
fought  all  the  doctrines  of  grace.  They  even  forced 
their  rationalism  and  liberalism  on  the  orthodox  be- 
lievers in  their  midst.  They  excommunicated  the 
leaders  of  reform;  and  although  the  element  of  State 
control  was  responsible  for  this  in  the  first  instance, 
the  work  of  Van  Raalte,  Van  Velzen,  Brummelkamp, 
and  Scholte  is  not  therefore  open  to  question,  and  the 
less  so,  because  these  leaders  were  cast  out.  The  errors 
and  sins  in  connection  with  that  secession  were  the  ter- 
rible contentions  about  the  relative  importance  of  cer- 
tain doctrines,  the  sacredness  or  insignificance  of 
Church  Rules,  and  other  questions,  which  later  were 
imported  more  or  less  into  America.  The  Dutch  seces- 
sion   suffered   for   years   from   the   consequences    of 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  21 

ignorance  of  what  was  Reformed,  and,  no  doubt,  she 
swung  too  far  the  other  way  as  a  result  of  the  natural 
reaction  against  the  State  Church.  In  the  secession  of 
1857  in  America,  however,  there  was  an  absolute  lack 
of  necessity  for  secession  as  compared  with  the  move- 
ment in  Holland,  and  in  1857  the  weak  features  of  the 
Dutch  secession  were  copied,  while  the  good  points 
were  entirely  lacking. 

6.  The  notion  that  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
East  was  like  the  State  Church  in  Holland,  and  even 
worse,  and  that  the  Secession  of  1857  was  therefore  a 
sacred  duty.  This  was  the  fundamental  error  of  the 
men  of  1857,  based  on  a  combination  of  the  other  errors 
mentioned ;  and  here  we  have  the  root  of  the  difficulty, 
which  is,  therefore,  the  subject  of  investigation  in 
these  and  succeeding  papers. 

It  may  be  conceded  that  a  few  of  the  leaders  of  1857 
believed  that  they  represented  orthodoxy,  and  that  Van 
Raalte  had  misled  them  in  1849-50  in  joining  the  East- 
ern Reformed  Church;  but  that  they  were  correct  in 
their  belief  must  be  strenuously  denied.  We  of  today 
are  in  better  position  to  consult  the  great  Reformed 
authorities,  while  the  men  of  '57  had  but  little  knowl- 
edge of  such  matters.  During  the  Sixties,  men  like 
Revs.  Van  der  Werp  and  F.  Hulst  came  from  the  ex- 
treme wing  of  the  Dutch  secession,  and  made  the 
seceders  in  Michigan  even  worse  than  they  had  been 
before.  Even  then  the  seceders  were  few  in  number, 
and  remained  so  until  after  1881,  when  a  great  immi- 
gration from  Holland  was  landed  in  their  camp  by  the 
Free  Masonry  agitation.  But  these  later  accessions 
did  not  represent  the  "colonists"  of  1850 ;  and  the  fact 
remains  that  in  1850  the  overwhelming  majority  in  the 
"colony"  were  decidedly  opposed  to  the  extreme  seces- 
sion-spirit of  old  Holland,  and  that  Van  Raalte  there- 
fore truly  represented,  and  continued  to  represent,  the 
colonial  spirit  of  1849-50. 

Later  on  Seceders  like  Van  der  Werp,  F.Hulst,  Haan, 
R.  T.  Kuiper,  and  Hemkes  wrote  books  or  pamphlets 


22  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

on  the  subject,  but  not  one  of  their  books  is  based  on 
the  records  of  1846-50,  nor  on  the  history  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  of  Holland  or  of  America.  And  to 
make  matters  worse,  as  late  as  1918,  one  Rev.  Beets 
wrote  a  history  of  the  secession  here,  based  almost  ex- 
clusively on  the  writers  just  mentioned.  Neither  Beets 
nor  the  others  consulted  the  records  of  the  Colonial 
Churches,  nor  of  the  Classis  of  Holland.  In  absolute 
violation  of  contemporaneous  records,  these  writers 
gathered  a  story  from  the  utterances  of  a  few  of  the 
extreme  seceders  of  1857,  and  tried  to  pass  this  off  as 
representing  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  1846-50. 
It  would  have  been  preferable  to  have  cast  a  veil  over 
the  whole  secession  of  1857,  and  over  the  gross  errors 
of  its  defenders;  but  when  the  extremely  prejudiced 
actors  in  that  secession  rushed  into  print  years  later 
in  defense  of  their  errors,  and  when  later  arrivals  like 
Hulst,  Van  der  Werp,  Haan,  Kuiper,  and  Hemkes,  none 
of  whom  was  one  of  the  "settlers,"  presumed  to  stand 
as  the  spokesman  of  years  gone  by,  and  tried  to  sub- 
stitute later  events  in  the  place  of  those  of  1846-50, 
and  when  Rev.  Beets,  like  one  born  out  of  due  time, 
pieces  these  misrepresentations  into  what  purports  to 
be  a  complete  history,  it  is  certainly  time  to  call  a  halt, 
and  to  re-establish  Van  Raalte  and  the  men  of  1850  in 
their  rightful  historical  place.  We  can  forgive  the 
seceders  of  1857  their  great  blunder,  in  the  belief  that 
their  intentions  were  good ;  but  to  forget  their  errors, 
and  to  fail  to  undo  the  bad  results  thereof,  cannot  be 
done  without  sacrificing  the  truth  of  history,  and  con- 
doning the  mistakes  of  those  who  certainly  were  not 
far  from  being  iconoclasts  and  innovators. 

The  seceders  of  the  West  plead  continually  to  be  left 
alone,  and  this  is  not  unnatural  so  long  as  writers,  with 
Calvin,  Brakel,  De  Moor,  Witsius,  the  proceedings  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  the  New  Testament  open  before 
them,  are,  with  the  real  facts  of  1834-57  in  view,  obliged 
to  sentence  that  secession  of  1857  as  absolutely  unwar- 
ranted and  unjustifiable.  It  is  remarkable  that  no  man 
can  write  in  favor  of  that  secession  without  attacking 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  23 

and  condemning  all  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the 
world,  and  without  twisting  Reformed  doctrine  and 
history  three  hundred  years  old ;  and  it  is  likewise  re- 
markable that  no  one  faithful  to  the  records  can  write 
about  that  secession  without  meting  out  a  condemna- 
tory sentence  of  "unnecessary  and  wrong"  against  it. 
If  the  foundation  of  that  secession  proves  so  weak  be- 
fore the  assaults  of  real  Reformed  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice that  it  cannot  stand  without  a  perversion  of  his- 
tory, the  fault  is  not  that  of  the  Reformed  Church,  but 
of  the  foundation-layers  themselves.  No  man  can 
claim  he  is  reforming  the  church,  when  he  acts  like  a 
bull  in  a  china-shop,  or  like  a  blacksmith  repairing  a 
watch  with  a  sledgehammer,  of  which  the  work  of  the 
men  of  '57,  especially  at  Noordeloos,  certainly  furnishes 
a  reminder.  A  man  may  have  a  strong  faith,  but  when 
he  thinks  he  alone  has  such  a  faith,  he  is  usually  mis- 
taken. If  a  writer  who  consults  the  records  of  Re- 
formed Churches  in  Holland  and  America,  and  consults 
the  minutes  of  the  Classis  of  Holland,  and  of  the  local 
churches  before  1857,  as  against  the  writings  of 
Haan,  Hemkes,  and  the  other  special  pleaders  for  seces- 
sion, can  pass  only  a  judgment  of  disapproval  on  the 
work  of  the  early  seceders,  the  fault  is  not  his,  but  that 
of  the  seceders  themselves.  If  that  secession  must 
necessarily  compromise  the  reputation  of  Van  Raalte, 
Van  der  Meulen  and  their  people,  in  order  to  whitewash 
Haan,  Van  den  Bosch,  and  Krabshuis,  and  to  make 
out  a  case  for  the  seceders  of  their  days,  the  question 
is  solved — solved  by  these  three  seceder  leaders  them- 
selves, for  they  all  proved  failures,  and  two  of  them 
even  became  repudiators  of  their  own  work  of  seces- 
sion. If  a  return,  from  the  mass  of  legends  and  stories 
that  arose  since  1850,  to  the  historical  basis  of  that 
time  involves  the  loss  of  the  very  foundation  of  seces- 
sion in  the  West,  and  if  the  truth  of  history  before  and 
after  1857  is  such  that  it  could  not  then,  cannot  now, 
and  cannot  for  all  time  to  come,  "leave  the  seceders 
alone,"  there  certainly  was  a  great  mistake  somewhere. 
The  truth  will  be  vindicated  in  due  time.    That  Van 


24  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Raalte  and  the  Classis  of  Holland,  and  the  Reformed 
Church  were  on  strictly  Reformed  ground  in  1857  is 
proved  by  what  is  and  was  Reformed  for  centuries; 
but  the  same  standard  shows  that  the  seceders,  no  mat- 
ter what  their  intentions,  were  decidedly  off  the  Re- 
formed reservation.  They  seceded  in  1857  on  account 
of  the  alleged  falseness  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and 
if  they  could  have  proved  this  charge,  their  action 
would  have  been  right.  But  under  Reformed  doctrine 
and  practice,  as  will  appear  later,  the  main  allegations 
of  the  Seceders  of  1857  against  the  Reformed  Church, 
even  if  true,  cannot  be  admitted  as  instances  of  funda- 
mental corruption  or  falseness,  nor  can  they  be  con- 
ceded to  be  even  as  much  as  weaknesses  in  that  Church, 
The  weakness  and  falseness  were  with  the  Seceders 
rather  than  with  the  Reformed  Church.  However,  in 
passing  judgment  upon  the  Secession  of  1857,  we  are 
faced  with  the  alternative  of  either  (1)  crediting  those 
Seceders  with  the  motive  of  seceding  on  account  of 
important  causes  like  fundamental  error  or  falseness, 
or  (2),  of  condemning  them  for  seceding  on  account 
of  mere  weaknesses,  which  they  themselves  admit 
never  justify  secession.  To  concede,  as  the  present 
Seceder  Church  seems  to  do,  that  the  men  of  1857 
seceded  under  the  pluriformity  scheme,  and  desired  a 
better  Church  only,  without  repudiating  the  Reformed 
Church  as  corrupt  and  false,  would  indeed  be  classing 
them  as  rebels  against  the  very  doctrines  and  practice 
of  the  Fathers  of  Dort  to  which  they  appealed  so 
strongly.  While,  in  either  case,  the  men  of  1857  were 
completely  in  error,  it  is  only  by  maintaining  that  they 
thought  they  were  seceding  from  a  corrupt  and  false 
church,  that  we  can  in  any  way  respect  the  motive 
which  impelled  them.  Graafschap  spoke  of  the  "fra- 
ternal adieu  and  be  by  themselves  again,"  based  on 
their  own  invention  of  the  so-called  "condition"  in  the 
union  of  1850,  but  their  other  acts  of  those  and  later 
days,  under  the  tutelage  of  Krabshuis,  with  his  slogan 
"There  is  no  truth  left  in  the  Church,"  and  of  Rev. 
Van  den  Bosch's  crusade  there  and  elsewhere  against 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  25 

"terrible  heresies"  in  the  Reformed  Church,  showed 
that  in  1857  they  did  not  bid  a  fraternal  adieu,  but 
thought  they  seceded  from  a  false  and  corrupt  church, 
and  that  therefore  they  established  the  True  Reformed 
Church  (De  Ware  Gereformeerde  Kerk),  as  against 
the  false  Reformed  Church.  The  history  of  those 
seceded  Churches  from  1857  onward  reveals  a  per- 
sistent and  contemptuous  attitude  of  absolute  rejec- 
tion of  the  Reformed  Church  consistent  with  no  other 
theory,  and  in  1866  the  Seceders  did  not  hesitate  to 
formally  declare  the  Reformed  Church  a  false  Church. 
In  1857  men  seceded  not  under  the  pluriformity 
scheme,  but  because  they  rejected  totally  the  idea  of 
a  pluriformity  of  true  churches,  and  hence  they  started 
"de  Ware  Kerk."  And  until  about  1880  they  main- 
tained stoutly  this  claim ;  but  at  about  that  time  there 
was  a  slight  shift.  They  began  to  speak  of  the  right 
to  leave  a  church  to  start  a  better  one.  Prof.  Hemkes 
said  so  in  1881,  but  so  great  was  the  confusion  in  his 
mind  that  he  added  to  his  statement  the  usual  "leave 
the  Church  in  order  to  remain  in  the  Church,"  showing 
that  the  old  claim  was  not  yet  extinct  in  his  mind. 
Later  on,  the  Seceders  shifted  still  farther,  and  "pluri- 
formity of  churches"  became  their  slogan,  under 
which  they  claimed  their  right  of  existence,  while  rec- 
ognizing the  Reformed  Church  as  a  part  of  the  Uni- 
versal Church.  Their  old  argument  of  falseness  and 
corruptions  as  reasons  of  secession  would  have  been 
correct,  if  provable,  and  under  it  secession  would  then 
have  been  Reformed,  and  consistent  with  duty.  But 
they  discovered  in  course  of  time  that  the  Reformed 
Church  was  not  a  false  Church  in  1857  or  afterwards, 
and  that  the  real  reason  of  their  secession  should  not 
have  been  falseness,  but  should  have  been  the  pluri- 
formity of  churches.  By  their  shift  from  falseness  to 
this  pluriformity — to  establish  a  better  church — they 
repudiated  and  destroyed  their  original  reason  of 
secession;  for  the  argument  that  these  Seceders  of 
1857  were  justified  in  starting  an  opposition  church, 
with  the  same  Confession,    Catechism,    Canons,    and 


26  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Rules,  and  in  beginning  a  work  that  has  engendered 
the  very  bitterest  feelings  the  human  breast  is  cap- 
able of  harboring,  and  involving  the  right  of  every- 
body else  to  start  an  opposition  church, — ^whatever  it 
may  be,  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  Christ. 
If  falseness  or  fundamental  corruption,  alleged  in 
1857-80,  have  by  their  own  acts  and  statements  been 
admitted  as  untenable  by  the  Seceders,  their  whole  case 
is  fairly  out  of  court;  for  their  other  and  later  de- 
fense, if  seriously  believed  in,  would  give  occasion  for 
starting  half  a  dozen  secessions  in  their  own  ranks  at 
once.  The  two  positions  are  inconsistent  and  contra- 
dictory, and  they  mutually  exclude  one  another;  and 
the  latter — ^the  right  to  set  up  a  better  church  under 
the  conditions  obtaining  among  us  in  the  West  in- 
volves the  disintegration  of  all  Christian  unity  as  ex- 
hibited in  denominational  life.  The  disastrous  effects 
of  blending  or  confusing  the  two  claims  is,  conse- 
quently, very  prominent  in  works  like  Rev.  Beets'  his- 
tory, where  that  writer  uses  partly  these  two  incon- 
sistent arguments,  although  he  practically  rejects  the 
alleged  falseness,  and  intimates,  in  a  foot-note,  at  least, 
that  he  bases  the  secession  on  the  other  policy — the 
pluriformity  of  Churches.  The  claim  of  falseness  of 
the  Reformed  Church  in  1857,  if  established,  would, 
of  course,  have  justified  the  secession;  but  the  pluri- 
formity scheme,  bad  enough  as  applied  between  Meth- 
odists, or  Baptists,  and  Reformed,  is,  when  applied  to 
the  then  and  now  existing  situation  in  and  between 
the  Reformed  and  Christian  Reformed  Churches,  noth- 
ing less  than  an  invention  of  doctrinaire  secessionism. 
Pluriformity  may  apply  where  it  is  unavoidable,  but 
in  the  religious  life  of  the  western  Hollanders,  not  such 
an  abominable  program  of  concession  to  human  frailty 
and  arbitrariness  and  heathenism  should  be  applied; 
on  the  contrary,  the  rule  of  Christ — to  be  one — is  and 
should  be  the  great  desideratum. 

After  a  careful  review  of  Dr.  Beets'  Zestig  Jaren, 
in  which  he  practically  surrenders  the  old  grounds  of 
secession  held  in  1857  and  later,  it  is  evident  that  he 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  27 

also  largely  surrenders  even  the  idea  of  "pluriformity 
of  churches."  That  v^^riter  probably  felt  the  inherent 
weakness  of  that  argument  as  applied  to  the  Reformed 
and  Seceded  Churches,  so  that  he  had  recourse  to  the 
alleged  "condition"  in  the  union  of  1850,  as  the  only 
basis  for  the  Secession  of  1857.  The  argument  of  Dr. 
Beets  seems  to  be  that  Dr.  Wyckoff,  in  June,  1849,  told 
the  settlers  that  they  could  bid  the  Reformed  Church 
adieu,  and  "be  by  themselves  again,"  if  anjrthing  should 
appear  in  the  Reformed  Church  v^hich  "they  did  not 
like."  Beets  says,  p.  101,  that  the  Return  of  1857  was 
legal,  and  was  a  duty  (plichtmatig) ,  on  account  of  the 
violation  of  the  condition.  But,  Dr.  Wyckoff  never 
used  the  words  in  the  sense  imputed  to  him,  and  this 
condition  in  the  Union  of  1850  was  invented,  not  dis- 
covered, seven  years  later  at  Graafschap,  as  we  shall 
show  later  on.  The  "condition"  as  advanced  by  the 
later  Seceders  is  so  un-Reformed,  so  heterodox,  that  it 
could  not  have  existed  in  1849  or  1850.  The  Seceders 
are,  therefore,  actually  basing  their  whole  secession  on 
mere  weaknesses  (never  held  suflScient  in  Reformed 
Churches  to  justify  secession),  under  an  alleged  "con- 
dition" which  never  could,  and  never  did,  exist.  What 
that  condition  really  was  will  appear  fully  later  on; 
but  this  shifting  of  the  basis  of  arguments  for  the 
Secession  of  1857  is  certainly  calculated  to  arouse  sus- 
picion as  to  the  correctness  of  the  whole  movement. 

The  present  Christian  Reformed  Church  is  not  a 
false  Church,  and  the  local  churches  in  that  denomina- 
tion should  not,  and  need  not,  be  interfered  with  in 
their  gospel  work.  That  is  not  the  question.  What- 
ever their  origin,  the  rule  that  where  two  or  three  are 
gathered  in  His  Name,  there  He  is  in  the  midst,  may 
well  be  given  precedence  here.  But  the  only  question 
at  issue  is  whether  the  secessions  of  1857  and  1882 
were  correct,  and  whether  the  terrible  division  of  in- 
fluence and  power  resulting  therefrom  is  not  infinitely 
worse  for  Reformed  doctrines  and  life  than  any  other 
assignable  cause.  The  only  real  question  involved  in 
this  whole  controversy  today  is  whether  circumstances 


28  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

warrant  the  continued  separate  existence  of  these  two 
wings  of  the  western  Reformed  people. 

The  writer,  to  show  the  error  committed  in  1857 
and  later,  has  been  forced  to  have  recourse  to  the  great 
source-books  of  Reformed  faith  and  practice  such  as 
Calvin  and  the  acts  of  the  different  synods,  and  espe- 
cially to  Voetius,  Van  Prinsterer  and  Kuyper.  The 
chapters  on  "The  Church,"  "The  Local  Church," 
"What  is  a  Reformed  Church?"  and  on  the  "Police 
Rules  of  God's  House,"  are  closely  built  on  these  writ- 
ers. Without  a  clear  knowledge  of  these  chapters  or 
the  substance  thereof,  no  one  can  understand  the  re- 
ligious controversy  among  our  Hollanders,  and  such  a 
one  had  better  leave  the  matter  at  arm's  length.  The 
writer  here  makes  a  general  acknowledgment  of  obli- 
gation to  Reformed  writers,  especially  to  the  writings 
of  Dr.  Kuyper  and  the  most  learned  Groen  Van  Prin- 
sterer, who  is  really  the  co-author  of  what  the  writer 
says  on  "What  is  a  Reformed  Church  ?" 

In  these  papers  the  basis  of  Reformed  doctrine  and 
practice,  etc.,  have  been  given  in  general  terms,  with- 
out going  too  much  into  detail.  Only  the  historical 
bearings  were  aimed  at.  But  it  is  suggested  that  a 
double  purpose  has  been  served  in  considering  such 
questions ;  for  in  addition  to  their  place  in  a  proper  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  in  hand,  the  knowledge  of  such 
things  as  the  Netherlands  Confession,  Canons  of  Dort, 
etc.,  is  fast  dying  among  us,  and  it  is  hoped  that  the 
following  pages  will  assist  a  little  in  familiarizing  our 
people  with  the  old  landmarks  the  Fathers  have  set. 

The  papers  following  this  series  will  take  up  the 
questions  here  left  off.  What  people  in  Holland  knew 
about  the  American  Reformed  Church  eighty  years 
ago,  and  what  Van  Raalte  and  the  settlers  learnt  about 
this  Church  in  the  three  years  before  1850,  will  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  analysis  of  the  Union  of  1850,  and  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  secessions  of  1857  and  1882.  That  the 
writer  has  been  forced  to  say  so  much  on  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  East  is  not  his  fault,  but  that  of  the 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  29 

careless  slanders  and  libels  of  that  Church  by  western 
Seceders,  and  especially  by  ignorant  and  incompetent 
writers. 

For  forty  years  or  more  the  necessity  of  uncover- 
ing the  old  historic  foundations  laid  before  1857,  from 
the  rubbish  of  false  foundations  imposed  upon  them, 
has  existed.  That  this  process  of  recovering  the  his- 
torical truth,  resulting  in  the  complete  vindication  of 
Van  Raalte  and  the  men  of  1849-50  over  against  the 
men  of  1857,  was  not  long  ago  thoroughly  worked  out 
by  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  West,  is  not  very 
creditable.  Why  should  the  Seceders  have  been  allowed 
for  years  to  set  up  false,  or  rather  warped,  standards 
of  doctrine  and  polity,  which  had  never  before  been 
heard  of  in  Reformed  Churches  until  the  secession  of 
1834  and  of  1857?  And  why  was  not  the  stand  of  Van 
Raalte  and  the  men  of  1850,  squarely  on  recognized 
Reformed  doctrine  and  practice,  powerfully  vindicated 
in  detail  in  books  as  against  the  innovators  of  1857? 
These  Seceders  have  actually  removed  their  neighbors' 
landmarks  which  they  of  old  had  set,  and  substituted 
for  the  old  landmarks  of  Reformed  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice, new  and  somewhat  spurious  landmarks,  conceived 
during  the  wildness  of  the  disturbances  of  1834  in 
Holland,  and  set  them  up  in  America  in  place  of  the 
old  and  tried  landmarks.  The  few  works  by  western 
writers  such  as  Zwemer  and  De  Bey's  Stemmen  (1871) , 
N.  H.  Dosker's  excellent  little  Geschiedenis  (1887),  and 
Dr.  Dosker's  Van  Raalte  (1893),  are  not  comprehen- 
sive enough  adequately  to  cover  the  subject,  and  it  is 
hoped  that  some  competent  man  will  assume  this 
larger  task. 

A  thorough  search  among  the  records  and  the 
events  of  1834-50,  here  and  in  Holland,  will  show  still 
more  clearly  the  correctness  of  the  position  assumed 
by  Van  Raalte  and  his  people  in  their  union  with  the 
Eastern  Church,  and  the  error  of  the  disruption  of  that 
union  in  1857. 

The  writer  has  counted  on  criticism  from  certain 
quarters,  and  he  expects  to  be  pilloried  for  presuming 


30  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

to  intimate  that  some  of  the  efforts  of  the  Seceders  for 
church  reformation  were  actually  church  deformation. 
He  expects  to  be  accused  of  desecrating  the  holy  of 
holies.  But  such  accusations  are  not  arguments,  and 
the  claim  of  reforming  the  church  is  not  always  the 
equivalent  of  reformation.  The  writer,  in  all  he  says, 
has  no  quarrel  with  most  of  the  local  Christian  Re- 
formed Churches  per  se  and  their  work;  but  the  or- 
ganization with  which  they  are  affiliated, — while  it,  of 
course,  cannot  be  a  decisive  factor  against  their  purity, 
— is,  nevertheless,  the  cause  of  the  division  and  loss  of 
power  of  all  the  Reformed  people  of  the  West.  The 
seceder  churches  above-mentioned,  for  a  long  time 
cursed  with  Antinomian  tendencies,  are  today  com- 
paratively free  from  that  flaw,  and  are,  as  a  rule,  ac- 
tive and  powerful  in  life  as  well  as  in  doctrine.  And 
with  this  change  for  the  better,  it  might  have  been 
considered  prudent  to  maintain  silence  on  the  affairs 
of  1857.  It  is  also  evident  that  the  present  Christian 
Reformed  Church  has  a  long  time  since  hoisted  the 
white  flag  over  the  bastions  and  bulwarks  of  1857, — 
which  were  the  charges  that  the  Reformed  Church  was 
false  and  corrupt, — and  has  retreated  to  the  inner  and 
weaker  breastwork  of  the  pluriformity  of  churches, 
meanwhile  ceasing  to  fire  upon  the  decoys  and  stalking 
horses  of  hymns,  Sunday  schools,  picnics,  funeral  ad- 
dresses, and  "all  other  Protestant  denominations." 

But  in  1918  a  Daniel  came  to  judgment.  Dr.  Henry 
Beets  wrote  a  history  of  the  secession  churches  in  that 
year,  and  in  his  work  he  refuses  to  assume  responsi- 
bility for,  and  to  approve,  all  the  reasons  assigned  for 
that  Secession ;  he  rejected  the  declaration  of  his  own 
church,  made  in  1866,  that  the  Reformed  Church  was 
a  false  church,  and  he  intimates,  rather  softly,  that 
there  may  and  ought  to  be  different  denominations — 
pluriformity  of  churches.  And  while  thus  hurling  in 
every  direction  the  fragments  of  what  little  there  was 
of  a  foundation  to  the  Secession  of  1857,  he  still  de- 
fends that  schism,  not  on  account  of  falseness  or  fun- 
damental corruption  of  the  Reformed  Church,  but,  it 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  31 

seems,  on  account  of  a  certain  alleged  "condition"  in- 
corporated into  the  union  of  the  western  Hollanders 
with  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  East  in  1849-50. 
It  was  not,  therefore,  grievances  or  alleged  grievances, 
upon  which  he  bases  the  right  of  secesssion,  but  upon 
that  alleged  condition,  which  he  claims  gave  the  west- 
ern people  special  privileges — a  special  right  to  secede 
on  account  of  minor  grievances  or  weaknesses  not 
hitherto  recognized  as  sufficient  grounds  for  secession. 
And  on  what  does  Dr.  Beets  base  his  argument?  On 
page  102  of  his  Zestig  Jaren,  he  says  that  at  the  con- 
ference of  Dr.  Wyckoff,  the  representative  of  the  East- 
ern Church,  with  Van  Raalte  and  the  "colonists,"  June 
4,  1849,  Dr.  Wyckoff  told  the  settlers  "that  they  would 
be  most  perfectly  free  at  any  time  they  found  an 
ecclesiastical  connection  opposed  to  their  religious 
prosperity  and  enjoyment,  to  bid  us  a  fraternal  adieu 
and  be  by  themselves  again."  And  this  is  all  Beets 
quotes  in  this  connection  from  the  rather  interesting 
paragraph  of  Wyckoff.  This  ambassador  of  Christ, 
Dr.  Beets,  falls  right  into  the  middle,  or  rather,  the 
end  of  the  Wyckoff  statement,  without  quoting  the 
whole  of  it,  and  thus  misleads,  "probably  not  with  a 
dishonest  intention,"  his  readers  with  a  warped,  muti- 
lated, and  therefore,  false  condition  of  union.  A 
clergyman,  especially,  one  would  think,  ought  to  have 
some  regard  for  the  connection  in  which  a  statement 
he  quotes  appears,  for  that  is  the  only  fair  method  of 
getting  the  sense  of  a  writer.  By  completeness  of 
quotation  we  find  that  our  pet  positions  often  get  but 
scant  support,  and  in  the  case  in  point  the  precon- 
ceived theory  of  Beets,  or  rather  of  Prof.  Hemkes,  of 
a  "conditional  union"  receives  a  rude  awakening  when 
one  reads  the  whole  paragraph  involved.  What  Wyck- 
off says  over  his  own  signature  about  this  question  is 
something  radically  different  from  a  "condition."  He 
said:  "At  the  Classical  meeting  it  was  soon  made 
known  that  the  brethren  were  a  little  afraid  of  enter- 
ing into  ecclesiastical  connection  with  us,  although  they 
believe  in  the  union  of  brethren,  and  sigh  for  Chris- 


32  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

tian  sympathy  and  association.  They  have  so  felt  to 
the  quick  the  galling  chains  of  ecclesiastical  domina- 
tion, and  have  seen  with  sorrow  how  exact  organiza- 
tion, according  to  human  rules,  leads  to  formality  on 
the  one  hand,  and  to  oppression  of  tender  conscience 
on  the  other,  that  they  hardly  knew  what  to  say.  I 
protested,  of  course,  that  it  was  the  farthest  from  our 
thoughts  to  bring  them  in  bondage  to  men,  or  to  exer- 
cise ecclesiastical  tyranny  over  them.  And  I  stated 
they  would  be  most  perfectly  free,  at  any  time  they 
found  an  ecclesiastical  connection  opposed  to  their 
religious  prosperity  and  enjoyment,  to  bid  us  a  fra- 
ternal adieu  and  be  by  themselves  again." 

On  part  of  this  paragraph  the  Seceders  have  finally 
landed  as  the  main  ground  of  their  secession  in  1857. 
Prof.  Hemkes,  in  1893,  even  changed  Wyckoff's  "a  lit- 
tle afraid"  into  "bange  vrees"  (anxious  fear)  ;  the 
Brochure  writers,  in  1869,  deduced  from  it  the  fact  that 
the  people  were  not  at  ease  (niet  gerust)  about  the 
union.  All  these  writers  continue  to  insinuate  that 
Van  Raalte  and  his  people  were  afraid  of  heterodoxy 
in  the  East.  But,  it  is  evident  from  what  Wyckoff 
himself  says,  that  they  desired  the  union  very  much, 
and  did  not  fear  heterodoxy,  but  that,  as  he  says,  "They 
have  so  felt  to  the  quick  the  galling  chains  of  ecclesi- 
astical domination,"  and  "have  seen  with  sorrow"  "ex- 
act organization  according  to  human  rules,"  in  the 
State  Church  and  among  the  snarling  elements  of  the 
factions  of  the  Seceders  in  the  Netherlands,  "that  they 
hardly  knew  what  to  say."  And  with  that  in  view 
Wyckoff  continues,  "I  protested,  of  course,  that  it  was 
farthest  from  our  thoughts  to  bring  them  into  bond- 
age to  men,  or  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  tyranny  over 
them.  And  I  stated  that  they  would  be  most  perfectly 
free,  at  any  time  they  found  an  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion opposed  to  their  religious  prosperity  and  enjoy- 
ment, to  bid  us  a  fraternal  adieu,  and  be  by  themselves 
again."  In  this  Wyckoff  was  uttering  correct  Re- 
formed Dutch  doctrine,  for  men  may  "bid  a  fraternal 
adieu"  to  a  Christian  Church,  and  even  "be  by  them- 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  33 

selves  again,"  provided  it  be,  as  Calvin  said,  v^^ithout 
"undue  contention  and  obstinacy  of  assertion";  but 
that  does  not  mean  secession  from  all  Protestant  de- 
nominations as  false  and  corrupt  churches;  and  that 
does  not  imply  that  the  few  can  claim  that  their  re- 
ligious prosperity  and  enjoyment  are  opposed  when- 
ever they  attempt  by  un-Reformed  innovations  to  kill 
the  religious  prosperity  and  enjoyment  of  every  other 
believer.    What  Van  Raalte  and  the  men  of  1849  were 
a  little  afraid  of  was  not  heterodoxy  in  the  Eastern 
Church.     On  the  contrary,  they  were  mortally  afraid 
of  the  very  thing  the  Seceders  in  1857  demanded,  and 
for  which,  when  they  could  get  their  own  way,  they 
seceded  —  namely  bondage  to  men  and  ecclesiastical 
tyranny.    If  the  Wyckoff  paragraph  contains  a  condi- 
tion in  addition  to  Reformed  practice, — which  it  does 
not, — it  was  a  condition  which  gave  Van  Raalte  and 
his  men  a  right  to  bid  farewell  to  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  if  she  ever  permitted  untutored,  narrow-vis- 
ioned    radicals    or    extremists    like    the    Seceders    of 
Graafschap  and  Noordeloos  in  1857,  to  establish  ec- 
clesiastical tyranny  and  bondage  to  men.    This  is  the 
very  opposite  of  what  the  Seceders  claim.    Wyckoff' s 
condition,  if  it  was  a  condition,  was  against,  instead  of 
in  favor,  of  the  Seceders. 

Dr.  Wyckoff' s  reference  in  the  above  is  plainly  to 
the  "galling  chains  of  ecclesiastical  domination  and 
"man-made  rules" ;  and  this  reference  is,  besides,  con- 
tained in  a  general  report  on  the  western  Hollanders 
to  the  Mission  Board  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 
The  General  Synod  of  that  Church  had  already  de- 
clared the  union  of  the  East  with  the  western  Hol- 
landers upon  the  reports  of  Rev.  Van  Raalte  and  the 
written  request  of  the  Classis  of  Holland,  through  the 
Part.  Synod  of  Albany,  a  few  days  before  the  Wyckoff 
report  was  received  as  a  part  of  the  annual  report  of 
the  Mission  Board.  Even  so,  Wyckoff's  report  had 
been  scattered  over  the  East  in  pamphlet  form  for  the 
past  ten  months,  and  Wyckoff  was  a  member  of  the 
Synod,  and  of  the  very  committee  which  handled  the 


34  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

matter  of  union  in  June,  1850,  and  he  and  everybody 
else  understood  the  paragraph  in  question  to  refer  to 
what  the  whole  paragraph  says,  namely,  to  freedom 
from  church  domination  by  man-made  rules,  and  not 
to  what  only  a  part  of  the  paragraph  is  twisted  to 
refer  to, — not  to  a  freedom  to  secede  on  account  of 
petty  dissatisfactions,  and  not  to  a  freedom  of  the  few 
extremists  either  to  rob  the  rest  of  the  church  of  their 
freedom  from  domination  by  human  rules,  or,  in  case 
of  the  failure  of  such  robbery,  to  secede  irrespective  of 
the  dictates  of  real  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice. 

If  the  Seceder  Church  of  the  West  can  surrender 
the  strongholds  of  1857,  and  can,  as  it  were,  water  the 
wine  of  the  vintage  of  1857,  and  can  gradually  sur- 
render on  the  questions  of  hymns,  funeral  sermons,  pic- 
nics, church  organs,  life  insurance,  vaccination,  and 
twenty  or  more  similar  questions,  it  is  passing  strange 
that  this  Church  should  now  base  her  right  of  exist- 
ence on  a  quotation  split  from  the  Wyckoff  statement — 
a  split  first  invented  at  Graafschap,  Mich.,  in  March, 
1857,  in  order  to  form  a  "condition"  to  lend  color  to 
the  insufficient  reasons  alleged  to  justify  the  secession 
there.  No  one  in  the  "Colony,"  or  in  the  Wyckoff  Con- 
ference, or  in  the  two  synods  of  the  Reformed  Church 
in  1850,  dreamed  that,  to  gather  the  real  sense  of  a 
paragraph,  it  should  be  cut  in  two,  and  the  first  half 
suppressed  and  thrown  away.  On  the  contrary,  every 
one  interpreted  the  paragraph  as  a  whole — ^that  the 
Reformed  Church  would  not  permit  any  one  to  set  up 
a  lordship  over  the  faith  as  the  State  Church  in  the 
Netherlands  had  done.  It  is  not  complimentary  to  the 
western  branch  of  the  Reformed  Church  that  it  has 
not  long  ago,  especially  since  1893,  when  the  real  archi- 
tect of  this  "conditional  union,"  Rev.  Hemkes,  wrote 
his  Rechtsbestaan,  thoroughly  written  up  the  whole 
history  of  the  first  ten  or  fifteen  years  of  the  colonial 
churches,  including  the  union  of  1849-50. 

The  writer  has  prepared  another  series  of  papers 
in  which  the  whole  matter  of  "conditional  union"  is 
fully  considered.    And  be  it  said  in  advance,  that  there 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  35 

is  not  a  scrap  of  admissible  evidence  in  the  v^^riter's 
possession, — and  he  has  investigated  all  the  claims  in 
the  books  and  pamphlets  of  the  Seceders, — that  dis- 
closes the  existence  anyw^here  of  the  alleged  "condi- 
tion" in  the  union  of  1850,  until  its  invention  in  1857. 
And  it  certainly  would  be  a  mistake  to  fail  to  call  the 
attention  of  our  people  to  the  hollowness  of  the  so- 
called  "condition" — a  condition  so  baseless  as  to  be 
an  egregious  blunder,  yes,  a  crime  against  the  truth  of 
history. 

However,  while  in  the  said  second  series  of  papers 
the  principles  and  the  evidence  presented  in  this  series 
will  be  directly  applied  to  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  secessions  of  1857  and  1882,  it  must  be  stated 
here,  that  in  his  research  thus  far,  it  has  become  evi- 
dent to  the  writer  that  (1),  The  institution  which  has 
so  long  held  sway  among  the  western  Hollanders,  and 
which  claims  that  it  has  received  from  God  blank 
writs  of  ejectment  from  the  church  and  from  heaven, 
which  it  can  fill  in  and  serve  at  its  pleasure  on  those 
who  differ  from  it,  seems,  finally,  to  be  nodding  to  its 
fall.  But  (2),  that  the  rank  and  file  of  the  western 
churches,  regular  and  seceded,  so  far  as  knowledge  of 
the  history  and  the  greatness  of  the  Reformed  faith 
of  our  fathers,  especially  its  importance  in  the  struggle 
for  the  liberties  of  the  world  three  centuries  ago,  are 
sorely  in  need  of  a  veritable  resurrection  from  the 
dead. 

In  this  and  the  other  historical  inquiries,  the  writ- 
er's object  was  not  to  minimize  or  deny  in  toto  the 
efforts,  hopes  and  aspirations  of  the  Seceders  for  pur- 
ity in  doctrine  and  practice,  nor  to  condone  their  ex- 
treme and  arbitrary  actions,  nor  yet  to  palliate  laxities 
in  the  Reformed  Churches.  His  whole  object  is  to 
ascertain  the  truth  and  to  further  unity  and  co-opera- 
tion of  all  Reformed  forces,  "beginning  at  Jerusalem." 

The  writer  in  his  research  came  upon  texts  like 
Acts  19:8-9,  so  often  that  it  is  pertinent  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  erroneous  use  of  that  and  similar  texts  as 
a  basis  for  secession  from  a  Christian  Church.    Acts 


36  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

19,  verses  8  and  9,  reads:  "And  he  [Paul],  entered 
into  the  synagogue,  and  spake  boldly  for  the  space  of 
three  months,  reasoning  and  persuading  as  to  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God.  But  when 
some  were  hardened  and  disobedient,  speaking  evil  of 
the  way  before  the  multitude,  he  departed  from  them, 
and  separated  the  disciples,  reasoning  daily  in  the 
school  of  Tyrannus."  Paul,  it  is  evident,  had  a  hard 
task.  He  was  trying  to  start  a  Christian  church  in  an 
anti-Christian  synagogue,  where  many  spake  evil  of 
the  Way ;  and  so  Paul  separates  the  good  ones,  the  dis- 
ciples, takes  them  out  of  the  world,  and  organizes  them 
into  a  Christian  church.  In  all  this  Paul  did  not  secede 
from  a  Reformed  or  a  Methodist  church,  but  from  an 
anti-Christian  association.  Methodists  do  not  speak 
evil  of  the  Way,  but  travel  the  Way.  Most  of  the  ob- 
jections of  the  Seceders  of  1822  and  1882  were  that  the 
Reformed  Church  was  too  friendly  with  Methodists. 
Methodists,  however,  are  not  Jewish  synagogues  from 
which  to  secede  as  Paul  did  at  Ephesus;  and  there  is 
still  less  support  in  texts  like  Acts  19  for  seceding  from 
the  Reformed  Churches. 

While  it  was  with  some  hesitation  that  these  pa- 
pers are  made  public,  it  is  certain  that  some  one,  some 
time,  will  have  to  speak  as  the  writer  has  done,  and  if 
that  is  so,  then  the  sooner  it  is  done  the  better.  The 
later  Seceder  writers  have  brought  upon  themselves 
the  condemnation  meted  out  to  them.  They  merit  even 
severer  censures  than  those  the  writer  has  passed  upon 
them,  if  for  nothing  else  than  for  their  speaking  evil 
before  the  multitude  about  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
without  knowing  what  they  were  talking  about.  Even 
Dr.  Beets,  while  he  praises  the  Reformed  Church  for 
her  "comparative  conservatism"  and  "missionary 
labors,"  and  gladly  ranks  her  as  a  part  of  Christ's 
Church  on  earth  (Zestig  Jaren,  pp.  107  and  119),  and 
generally  concedes  the  unsoundness  of  the  accusations 
of  falseness  against  her,  still  speaks  of  her  as  "that 
English  Church,"  "that  American  Church,"  and  "that 
strange  Church"   (die  vreemde  Kerk),  Zestig  Jaren, 


REMOVING      THE      UNDER-BRUSH  37 

pp.  104-105.  And  all  this  of  a  Church  that  knew  Re- 
formed doctrine  and  practice,  and  the  history  of  Hol- 
land, far  better  than  any  of  the  immigrants  who  came 
here  from  Holland  after  1846! 

In  order  to  do  justice  to  all  concerned,  the  writer 
will  not  withhold  his  meed  of  praise  for  the  desires 
and  efforts  of  some  of  the  Seceders  for  a  pure  church 
in  their  midst ;  but  when  those  Seceders,  through  their 
own  writers,  lead  the  way  to  the  abandonment  of  their 
own  foundations  laid  in  1857,  they  cannot  blame  oth- 
ers for  subjecting  to  the  acid  test  of  Reformed  doctrine 
and  practice  their  other  and  later  claims  for  continued 
separate  existence.  The  gradual  surrender  of  the 
grounds  of  1857  by  the  present  Christian  Reformed 
Church,  as  evidenced  in  its  history  of  the  last  thirty 
years,  has  to  that  extent  freed  that  secession  from 
much  of  the  charge  of  being  a  standing  accusation  of 
dishonesty  and  deception  against  Van  Raalte,  his  peo- 
ple. Dr.  Wyckoff,  and  the  Reformed  Synods  of  1850; 
and  were  it  not  that  a  "condition"  is  forced  into  the 
union  of  1850,  which,  if  true,  involved  the  right  of  the 
few  extremists  for  purity,  and  even  heretics,  to  con- 
sider their  own  religious  prosperity  and  enjoyment  to 
consist  in  the  destruction  of  the  religious  prosperity 
and  enjoyment  of  everybody  else — a  monstrosity  in  the 
whole  Reformed  system — the  writer  would  have  main- 
tained silence.  But  as  matters  stand  today,  develop- 
ments in  the  Seceder  Churches  show  conclusively  that 
the  men  of  1857  committed  an  error  in  thus  running 
amuck  of  Calvinistic  and  Reformed  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice, which  has  to  be,  and  is  being,  undone  gradually 
by  their  successors.  But  however  this  may  be,  in  the 
writer's  judgment  the  importance  of  the  matters 
placed  in  jeopardy  by  the  continuation  of  the  religious 
separation  of  the  western  Hollanders  warrants  the 
efforts  for  closer  association  aimed  at  by  him.  Offense 
will  necessarily  be  given  by  referring  to  the  records 
of  the  past,  but  let  it  be  remembered  that  it  is  wrong 
to  take  offense  at  the  truth  of  history,  and  that  it  is 
always  right  to  tell  the  truth,  no  matter  where  it 


38  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

strikes.  The  writer,  though  without  illusions  on  the 
subject,  hopes  that  the  time  is  near  when  what  hap- 
pened in  the  Netherlands  in  1892  will  happen  here,  and 
that  we  may  soon  be  able  to  speak  of  the  "Reformed 
Churches  in  America."  But  whatever  happens  there 
should  be  no  undue  haste.  It  is  necessary  that  the 
Seceders  of  the  West  first  of  all  should  know  that  their 
predecessors  were  the  ones  who  broke  the  ecclesiastical 
unity  without  a  scriptural  warrant  therefore,  and  that, 
therefore,  in  that  secession  of  1857  all  is  not  gold  that 
glitters. 

The  writer  is  satisfied  that  in  writing  about  the 
ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  western  Hollanders  as  he 
has  done,  he  runs  but  little  risk  of  an  unfavorable  com- 
parison with  writers  like  Hemkes  and  Beets.  It  is 
not  possible  to  make  a  bigger  failure  of  the  work  than 
those  black-cloth  writers  have  done,  for  they  actually 
wrote  the  history  of  the  religious  wars  among  the 
Hollanders,  with  the  history  left  out,  and  with  the 
claims  and  inventions  of  later  Seceders  substituted  in 
the  place  of  the  history  of  1846-56.  It  is  high  time 
that  the  scalpal  of  history  and  of  logic  be  applied  to  the 
ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  "Pilgrim  Fathers  of  the 
West,"  in  order  that  the  truth  crushed  to  earth  by 
writers  who  maintain  that  history  still  justifies  the 
schism  of  1857,  when  they  themselves  are  surrendering 
the  old  foundations,  and  substituting  new  ones  there- 
fore, may  rise  again.  The  writer  therefore  began  with 
the  beginning — Reformed  doctrine  and  practice  as  ap- 
plied in  the  churches  of  Dort  and  in  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  and  those  again  applied  to  the  church 
affairs  of  the  "Colony."  This  method  involves  test- 
ing the  settlers,  and  especially  the  Seceders,  by  what 
was  and  is  really  Reformed,  instead  of  testing  Re- 
formed doctrine  and  practice  by  the  standard  of  the 
few  inexperienced  and  opinionated  leaders  of  the  seces- 
sion among  those  settlers. 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN    HOLLAND       39 


III.    THE  VOICE  OF  THE  "MOTHER 
CHURCH"  IN  HOLLAND 


A  FEW  years  ago,  while  investigating  certain 
phases  of  the  early  history  of  the  Holland  set- 
tlements in  Michigan,  the  v^riter  came  upon  the 
religious  relations  of  the  settlers  so  often,  that  it  was 
impossible  to  understand  their  colonial  history  with- 
out inquiry  into  the  ecclesiastical  concerns  of  those 
Pilgrim  Fathers  of  seventy-five  years  ago.  And  while 
such  inquiry  led  back  to  a  series  of  facts  at  the  basis 
of  the  religious  wars  which  have  disgraced  the  Hol- 
landers in  the  West,  and  the  discussion  of  which  is 
likely  even  now  to  cause  resentment  and  contention, 
the  writer's  excuse  for  speaking  about  these  religious 
battles  now  is  that  nothing  can  be  gained,  but  a  great 
deal  lost,  by  allowing  wrong  conceptions  to  be  held 
and  disseminated  about  the  terrible  state  of  affairs 
that  has  existed  among  us  for  sixty  years  or  more. 

On  the  road  from  Holland  to  Drenthe,  there  is,  or 
was,  a  hill,  about  three  miles  east  of  Holland,  whence 
could  be  seen,  some  forty  years  ago,  in  different  direc- 
tions, the  white  steeples  of  some  ten  or  twelve  Dutch 
churches.  These  were  all  country  churches;  and  the 
prominence  in  the  landscape  of  the  "village  church 
among  the  trees,"  "pointing  with  taper  spire  to 
heaven,"  while  characteristic  of  most  of  the  Holland 
settlements  in  America,  is  yet  such  an  unusual  thing 
for  those  who  know  the  rationalistic  and  Unitarian 
Netherlands  of  the  last  hundred  years,  that  it  is  neces- 
sary to  note  that  the  bulk  of  the  emigration  from  Hol- 
land to  America  since  1847  was  composed  of  the  poor- 
er and  less  refined  Netherlanders,  not  as  yet  saturated 


40  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

with  rationalistic  doctrine.  There  are  today  some  fifty 
of  these  Dutch  Churches  in  Ottawa  and  Allegan  coun- 
ties alone,  almost  all  in  the  Black  River  basin,  and  the 
history  of  these  churches  tells  the  history  of  the  "col- 
ony" very  well  indeed. 

Wherever  church  spires  spring  white  in  the  sky, 
there,  we  know,  people  are  looking  for  Repos  Ailleurs, 
Rest  Elsewhere.  There  they  are  looking  for  the  City 
of  God,  the  new  Jerusalem,  where  "God  shall  wipe 
away  all  tears  from  their  eyes ;  and  where  there  shall 
be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow  nor  crying;  neither 
shall  there  be  any  more  pain;  for  the  former  things 
are  passed  away."  And  it  is  true  that  the  presence  of 
so  many  flourishing  churches  among  the  Hollanders  in 
America  shows  that  a  really  strong  religious  principle 
is  at  work  among  them.  But  upon  closer  examination, 
the  fact  stares  us  in  the  face  that  among  these  Hol- 
landers we  find  at  each  place  not  one  —  but  two  — 
churches,  sometimes  at  swords'  points,  and  bitter  in 
their  relations.  Both  unquestionably  active  and  zeal- 
ous, but  in  their  relations  with  other  churches,  heathen- 
ish and  un-Christian.  How  this  came  to  pass,  will 
appear  later,  but  that  it  was  so  from  about  1857  can- 
not be  denied. 

Here  are  two  denominations  existing  side  by  side 
in  the  same  field,  composed  of  people  who  trace  their 
pedigree  to  the  land  of  dikes  and  dunes,  and  to  the 
heroic  Church  of  the  Eighty  Years  War.  The  Forms 
and  Rules  of  these  churches  were  born  out  of  the  ex- 
igencies of  Holland's  War  for  political  and  religious 
freedom,  when  the  question  of  Church  Rules  especially 
was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  people.  Several  times 
during  the  Eighty  Years  War  the  Reformed  Churches 
of  the  Netherlands  made  Church  Rules  to  suit  the  re- 
quirements of  the  times,  it  is  true;  but  the  Rules 
adopted  by  these  different  synods  were  not  abrogated 
or  repealed  absolutely  by  succeeding  synods ;  nor  were 
the  Rules  of  Dort  (1619)  ever  used  as  iron  rules  in 
the  Churches  of  Holland;  deviations  were  permitted, 
because  it  was    a    part    of    Reformed  doctrine  that 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       41 

Church  Rules  could  not  and  therefore  should  not,  com- 
pel the  consciences  of  believers.  The  old  Church  of 
Holland,  therefore,  always  recognized  the  work  of  pre- 
vious synods,  and  the  Rules  adopted  from  Wesel  to 
Dort  were  always  printed  in  the  Church  Handbook  to- 
gether. The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  New  York 
and  New  Jersey,  while  printing,  in  1792,  in  her  Con- 
stitution the  Rules  of  Dort  of  1619  only,  refers  to  and 
adheres,  in  her  Explanatory  Articles,  to  the  rules  of 
preceding  synods  in  several  instances  where  Dort  had 
varied  from  former  synods;  and  these  variations,  in 
part,  gave  rise  in  1792  to  these  very  Explanatory  Ar- 
ticles. The  seceder  synod  of  1840  in  Holland,  while 
re-adopting  the  "Rules  of  Dort,"  re-adopted  the  rules 
of  preceding  synods  also,  for  qualification  and  clarifica- 
tion of  the  Rules  of  Dort,  and  printed  them  all  in  the 
Handbook  of  1840.  And  when  Rev.  A.  C.  Van  Raalte 
and  the  Holland  immigrants  in  Michigan  organized 
their  first  Classis  in  1848,  they  adopted  "the  whole 
Handbook  of  1840  as  expressing  the  system  of  Re- 
formed Church  government."  And  because  there  was 
conflict  between  the  Rules  of  those  different  synods,  and 
because  the  matter  of  Church  Rules  in  the  Netherlands 
was  at  this  time  in  such  inextricable  confusion,  this 
Holland  Classis  also  made,  and  was  obliged  to  make, 
special  rulings  on  matters  of  feast-days,  catechetical 
instruction,  etc.,  to  suit  their  local  needs  and  desires. 
The  expression  "Rules  of  Dort"  refers  therefore  not 
to  the  Rules  as  written  at  Dordrecht  in  1619,  but 
rather  to  the  Rules  as  used  and  applied  by  the  Re- 
formed Churches  in  the  Netherlands  after  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  1619.  The  expression  means  rather  the  Rules 
the  churches  of  Dort  used  until  1816,  carrying  with 
them,  of  course,  the  rules  of  preceding  synods,  and 
especially  the  declaration  of  the  first  synod  held  at 
Wesel  in  1568,  known  as  the  Preface  of  Wesel,  to  show 
"the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Fathers."  This  Preface 
is  the  basis  of  all  Reformed  Church  government  today. 
It  explained  to  a  hair  the  limitations  of  Church  Rules, 
and  forever  destroyed  lordship  over  God's  heritage  in 


42  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Reformed  churches.  This  grand  work  of  the  Fathers 
at  Wesel  was  lost  during  the  Secession  of  1834  in  old 
Holland  for  years,  and  was  forgotten  by  the  leaders 
of  the  Secession  in  Michigan  in  1857.  Certainly  in 
that  secession  the  reports  of  heterodoxy  in  the  Eastern 
Church,  spread  by  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
(a  small  secession  in  the  East  in  1822) ,  had  some  effect, 
but  these  reports  were  so  one-sided  that  they  were 
ignored  entirely  in  one  of  the  main  official  declaration 
of  the  Seceders  of  1857.  That  declaration  is  entirely 
based  on  misconceptions  of  what  were  really  Reformed 
Church  Rules,  as  it  mentioned  no  doctrinal  objections 
to  the  Eastern  Church.  It  is  undeniable  that  the  main 
difference  between  the  two  warring  factions  of  the 
Western  Reformed  people  centered  for  a  long  time 
round  this  difference  of  conception  of  the  words  "Rules 
of  Dort."  The  Seceders  in  their  books  clearly  restrict- 
ed the  words  too  much  to  the  Rules  as  written  at  Dord- 
recht, while  the  Reformed  people  held  them  to  be  "the 
whole  Handbook,"  with  the  Rules  of  all  the  synods 
from  Wesel  to  Dort,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Preface  laid 
down  at  Wesel.  That  the  Seceders  in  1857  were  wrong 
is  admitted  by  their  own  Church,  which  has  made  sev- 
eral radical  changes  in  the  Dort  Rules,  not  to  mention 
several  additions  thereto. 

But  however  the  secession  came  to  pass,  the  results 
of  it  are  with  us  today, — altar  against  altar,  church 
against  church,  school  against  school,  and  seminary 
against  seminary.  For  years  since  1857,  ecclesiasti- 
cally it  was  hell  in  the  Colony.  Good  fences  make  good 
neighbors  when  you  have  to  be  neighbors;  but  good 
fences  make  poor  families  when  you  should  live  as  a 
family.  According  to  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice, 
the  difference  in  views  regarding  Church  Rules  in  1857 
did  not  justify  secession;  and  according  to  Reformed 
doctrine  and  practice,  the  reports  of  heresy  in  the  East, 
spread  by  the  followers  of  Fraeligh,  and  accepted,  to 
some  extent  in  the  West,  without  knowledge  of  the  aw- 
ful failure  of  the  Labadistic  and  Antinomian  heresies 
of  those  Eastern  Seceders  of  1822,  did  not  justify 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       43 

secession  in  1857.  If  the  Church  of  God  were  a  mere 
human  institution,  we  would  concede  the  right  of  the 
Seceders  of  1857  "to  be  by  themselves  again";  but  so 
long  as  the  Church  is  a  divine  institution  we  are  bound, 
not  by  dissatisfaction  or  anger  or  the  use  of  feast-days, 
or  stories  of  heresy,  but  by  the  Reformed  Standards 
based  on  the  Word  of  God.  According  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, "seceding  from  all  Protestant  denominations"  is 
heresy,  even,  as  Calvin  says,  "if  some  fault  exists  in 
the  preaching  or  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments." 

The  Free  Masonry  question  interjected  into  the  life 
of  the  Western  Reformed  Churches,  in  1880,  and  later, 
is  not  considered  by  impartial  judges  competent  to  rule 
on  such  questions,  as  was  the  late  Dr.  Kuyper,  as  pre- 
senting insuperable  barriers  to  the  fusion  of  the  Se- 
ceded Churches  of  the  West  with  the  Reformed  Church 
in  America.  That  question,  nevertheless,  seems  to 
present  the  chief  obstacle  to  union.  Some  Seceders,  it 
must  be  conceded,  think  the  failure  of  the  Reformed 
Church  to  emphasize  Predestination  and  Election  is 
the  main  objection  to  union.  This  matter  of  emphasis, 
however,  is  not  a  fundamental  difference,  but  is  simply 
a  matter  of  degrees  of  emphasis.  The  insistence  on 
purity  in  doctrine  cannot  be  wrong,  but  the  over-in- 
sistence on  pure  doctrines  always  destroys  the  purity 
of  an  active  Christianity.  Furthermore,  the  doctrine 
of  secession  as  a  means  to  purify  a  church  does  not 
always  hold  good.  The  reflex  action  of  a  secession 
based  on  mere  weaknesses  in  a  Church,  leading,  as  it 
does,  to  a  rank  phariseeism  in  the  seceder,  is  always 
injurious  to  the  church  seceded  from,  for  by  their  ex- 
cesses the  Seceders  make  the  real  cause  of  Christianity 
very  unattractive  to  all  others.  The  pietistic  extrava- 
gance of  the  Seceders  of  1857  made  many  a  man  in 
the  "Colony"  lose  his  faith  entirely.  Religiosity  and 
hyper-orthodoxy  are  the  allies  of  infidelity  and  luke- 
warmness  always.  The  present  Christian  Reformed 
Church  of  the  West  is  not  the  Seceder  Church  of  1857, 
nor  anything  like  it,  except,  perhaps,  in  its  desire  for 


44  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

doctrinal  purity.  That  Church  today  is  far  superior 
to  what  the  "True  Church,"  as  she  once  called  herself, 
was  in  1870.  She  is  no  longer  seceded  from  all  other 
Protestant  denominations;  and  her  active  churches, 
her  many  excellent  pastors  and  teachers,  her  piety  and 
great  sacrifices  for  the  Cause  of  Christ,  entitle  her  to 
a  place  among  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation.  No 
matter  how  irregular  and  erroneous  her  origin  may 
have  been,  it  stands  no  one  in  hand  to  class  the  Chris- 
tion  Reformed  Church  of  the  West  as  a  false  church; 
but  still  less  may  any  one  class  the  Reformed  Church 
as  a  false  church.  These  two  have  no  right  to  exist 
side  by  side  as  they  have  done  for  the  last  sixty  years. 
The  difference  in  conception  of  Church  Rules  and  of 
the  emphasis  to  be  placed  on  the  doctrine  of  Election 
and  allied  doctrines,  do  not  justify  the  rank  jealousy, 
and  the  splitting  in  two  of  the  strength  of  religion 
among  them,  as  has  been  the  case  for  sixty  years.  These 
two  Churches  have  no  right  to  a  separate  existence 
under  the  law  of  Christ,  so  long  as  they  "say  the  same 
thing"  on  essential  doctrines. 

It  was  easy  work  for  a  few  leaders  among  the  Hol- 
landers during  the  eighties  to  agitate,  and  to  condemn 
Free  Masonry,  when  they  were  not  affected  directly 
by  the  problem ;  but  the  presence  of  anything  that  has 
gained  more  or  less  of  a  foothold,  as  Masonry  had  in 
the  East,  is  not  so  easily  disposed  of.  Judges,  like  Dr. 
Kuyper,  in  the  Netherlands,  not  directly  connected 
with  the  two  wings  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the 
West,  can  pass  a  better  judgment  on  that  question 
than  we  ourselves  can.  With  his  eyes  squarely  on  the 
matter  of  union  of  all  the  Holland  churches  of  the 
West,  and  not  unmindful  of  the  old  Hollanders  of  the 
East,  one  of  the  latest  utterances  of  Dr.  Kuyper  on 
the  Free  Masonry  question  as  affecting  the  union  of 
the  two  churches  among  the  Hollanders  is  very  strik- 
ing proof  of  the  fact  that  he  did  not  think  Free  Mason- 
ry at  all  a  sufficient  casus  belli  to  justify  the  divi- 
sion of  the  Holland  Churches  in  the  West.  The  dis- 
pute about  Free  Masonry  will  be  discussed  in  con- 


VOICE    OF    THE       MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       45 

nection  with  the  affairs  of  1882,  but  the  following 
words  of  Dr.  Kuyper  are  appropriate  here.  In  his 
Varia  Americana,  pp.  79-84,  Dr.  Kuyper  wrote  as  fol- 
lows:— "It  was,  then,  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 
which  Van  Raalte  and  the  colonists  joined  in  1849 
[1850],  and  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  later  all 
kinds  of  differences  about  Free  Masonry  and  discipline 
led  to  the  formation  of  a  group  of  churches  over  against 
the  Reformed  Church. 

"We  leave  the  dispute  alone,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
that  nothing  has  weakened  the  position  of  the  Dutch 
element  more  than  just  this  schism  (scheuring). 

"Politically,  the  Dutch  element  in  America  cannot 
organize  itself.  This  would  be  a  wrong  procedure,  not 
authorized  under  the  constitution;  but  that  is  no  rea- 
son why  the  valuable  and  powerful  characteristics  of 
religion  in  the  Netherlands  cannot  be  maintained  and 
emphasized  in  their  ecclesiastical  life.  The  clergymen 
are  the  leaders,  and  if  they  divide  and  quarrel,  the 
people  do  likewise,  and  thus  the  power  and  the  unity 
of  the  Hollanders  is  broken. 

"With  this  in  view,  we  cannot  insist  too  strongly 
upon  the  union  of  these  two  elements,  and  we  are  con- 
vinced that  we  speak  for  every  well-informed  Nether- 
lander who  sees  the  great  danger  that  this  break  will 
threaten  the  honor  and  future  of  our  race  in  America. 

"So  much  misconception  crept  in,  that  people 
stumbled  on  account  of  things  indifferent  (bijzaken), 
instead  of  keeping  in  view  the  foundation  (grondslag) 
of  church  life.  Especially  did  the  Free  Masonry  ques- 
tion clearly  bring  this  to  view.  Those  who  came  to 
America  from  Holland  began  to  be  offended,  for  in  the 
Netherlands  Masonry  is  very  decidedly,  and  on  prin- 
ciple, opposed  to  belief  in  Revelation.  But  in  America 
this  is  entirely  different.  Masonry  came  from  Eng- 
land to  America  [not  from  the  continent  where  it  was 
inimical],  and  bore  a  very  different  character,  and 
even  the  idea  was  not  wanting  that  Masonry  did  noth- 
ing but  propagate  Christian  truth  under  symbolical 
forms." 


'46  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Quoting  a  long  article  in  the  N.  Y.  Tribune  of  Nov. 
27,  1906,  about  the  Christianization  of  Masonry,  the 
learned  Dr.  Kuyper  continues:  "Is  it  then  so  incom- 
prehensible that  many  members  of  the  Reformed 
Church  viewed  Masonry  from  a  different  angle,  and 
did  not  share  the  alarm  or  offense  (ergernis)  felt  by 
those  who  came  from  the  Netherlands?  And  even 
conceding  that  these  men  were  mistaken,  that  the 
Christianization  of  Free  Masonry  is  an  illusion,  and 
that  the  fruit  of  this  order  always  turns  itself  against 
Christianity, — still  it  follows  from  this  that  miscon- 
ception alone  could  lead  to  the  conclusion  to  impute  to 
Masonry  an  animus  (opzet),  which  is  far  removed 
from  it.  We  do  not  doubt,  then,  for  a  moment  that  the 
new  efforts  which  may  be  looked  for  to  heal  the  breach, 
will  be  built  upon  another,  a  more  fundamental  basis, 
and  on  a  stronger  conception  of  church  government 
(kerkregt),  and  that  the  day  is  not  far  off  in  which 
both  elements,  one  in  ecclesiastical  origin,  will  be 
united." 

Dr.  Kuyper,  in  the  same  connection,  refers  to  the 
interesting  and  inspiring  history  of  the  "Colonists  of 
1847,"  and  to  the  fact  that  they  in  their  lives  held  in 
high  honor  the  Dutch  name  and  traditions.  But  Kuyper 
insists  that  it  should  be  the  prayer  of  all  "that  the  one 
black  mark  (zwarte  stip)  of  their  ecclesiastical  divi- 
sion may  be  expunged  from  the  pages  of  that  history." 

After  everything  is  said  about  the  secession 
churches  in  the  Netherlands,  it  is  clear  that  those 
churches  view  the  breach  of  Joseph  among  the  Hol- 
landers in  America  as  inexcusable.  The  attitude  of  the 
Seceder  Synod  in  old  Holland  after  1892  is  not  even  so 
conclusive  on  this  point  as  the  tone  of  her  leading  writ- 
ers. Rev.  A.  Littooy  of  Middelburg  was  president  of 
the  Synod  of  1869,  when  the  "churches  Under  the 
Cross"  joined,  and  he  was  a  man  of  the  highest  stand- 
ing in  the  Secession  Church.  He  says  he  was  not  cast 
out  by  the  State  Church,  but  went  out  because  the 
State  Church  forced  Rationalists  into  orthodox 
churches,  and  therefore  did  not  permit  the  worship  of 


VOICE    OF    THE     "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       47 

God  according  to  the  Word.  Littooy  and  the  Secession 
Church  clave  to  the  doctrine  of  autonomy  of  the  local 
churches,  and  v^^hen  the  State  Church  and  the  Synod 
of  The  Hague  had  made  Church  Rules  which  forbade 
the  local  church  to  enforce  discipline  against  the  un- 
believing rationalists  or  modernists  forced  on  them, 
they  seceded  because  they  could  not  serve  God  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  Word.  The  whole  question  was: 
Could  they  serve  God  as  his  Word  directs?  If  they 
could  not,  they  must  secede.  Littooy  further  says,  "I 
do  not  even  ask,  'Do  they  serve  God  according  to  his 
Word  in  the  State  Church?'  If  they  can,  but  do  not, 
it  is  merely  a  question  of  practice,  and  the  State  Church 
is  not  then  corrupt  in  foundation."  It  is  evident  that 
the  Dutch  Secession  Churches  rest  their  whole  case  on 
the  interference  of  the  State  Church  with  the  worship 
in  the  local  churches  as  prescribed  in  the  Bible,  as  in- 
stanced principally  in  forcing  them  to  receive  from 
other  churches  those  not  sound  in  doctrine. 

Rev.  Littooy,  in  1885,  wrote  a  little  book,  entitled, 
"Onze  Gescheiden  Broeders  Hadden  Ook  Moeten  Blij- 
ven.  Is  Dat  Waar  ?"  On  page  36,  he  says,  "The  word 
'church'  means  we  are  the  Lord's,  and  the  Lord's  we 
are  when  we  obey  Him.  The  invisible  church  we  do 
not  know;  God  knows  it,  and  He  alone;  and  according 
to  our  Confession,  we  must  join  ourselves,  not  to  the 
invisible  church,  but  to  the  visible,  that  is,  the  church 
of  Christ  that  appears  in  visible  form,  to  the  church 
which  has  tangible  marks  (waarneembare  merkteek- 
enen).  The  invisible  body  of  Christ  assumes  on  this 
side  of  the  grave,  an  attitude — a  garment  or  vesture — 
which  will  be  discarded  in  the  end  when  Jesus  sepa- 
rates the  wheat  from  the  chaff.  This  vesture  must  be 
conformable  to  the  real,  or  there  is  no  evidence  of  a 
church.  The  church  of  Christ  must  manifest  itself  in 
its  true  nature  as  a  light  shining  in  darkness,  and  a 
city  set  on  a  hill,  and  the  church  must  put  away  an 
un-Christian  vesture  as  quickly  as  the  individual  sin- 
ner is  required  to  do." 


48  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

On  p.  12,  the  necessity  of  discipline  in  families, 
cities,  and  nations  is  shown,  and  "all  these  spheres  be- 
long to  the  earthly  dispensation  and  are  designed  for 
this  life,  while  the  Church  of  Christ  is  everlasting,  and 
will  be  perfected  in  heaven.  Her  sphere  is  therefore 
the  holiest,  most  consecrated.  And  shall,  nevertheless, 
in  this  consecrated  ground  alone,  everything  be  allowed 
to  grow?  Can  and  may  all  live  here  without  distinc- 
tion ?  Or  must  not  rather,  on  this  holy  ground,  where 
there  are  no  natural,  social,  or  patriotic  bonds,  in  the 
ordinary  sense,  but  where  faith,  one  in  Christ,  makes 
one  body,  the  holy  things  of  God  be  maintained  by  men 
most  tenderly,  faithfully  and  purely?  The  answer  is 
yes,  and  God's  Church  will  not  therefore  deteriorate, 
or  be  destroyed  like  Eli  and  his  sons,  "naturally  not  be- 
cause God  needs  us,  but  because  he  wants  to  use  us  in 
every  sphere  of  life,  and  has  therefore  ordained  dis- 
cipline, not  only  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  by  men." 
The  ordinary  texts  relative  to  discipline  are  then 
given,  and  Littooy  says,  "These  words  were  spoken, 
not  to  God,  but  by  God  to  men."  He  then  shows  that 
in  the  State  Church  of  Holland,  orthodox  churches  are 
compelled  to  receive  unbelievers  from  other  churches 
into  membership  and  to  the  communion,  etc.,  and  he 
calls  this  submission  to  the  Synod  of  the  State  Church, 
"obeying  men  rather  than  God."  He  next  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  responsibility  of  the  congregation  for  neg- 
lect of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  refers  specifically 
to  the  texts  in  Rev.  2,  which  show  the  responsibility 
of  local  churches. 

On  p.  20,  Littooy  says,  "According  to  Christian  and 
Reformed  principles,  rules  of  church  control  (kerk- 
recht)  may  never  dominate  the  Scriptures  and  Con- 
fession, but  confession  and  church  rules  are  subject  to, 
and  must  be  distilled  from,  the  Bible,  and  must  be  in 
accordance  therewith."  On  p.  21  he  says,  "Only  where 
the  history  of  the  Church  of  the  Fatherland  is  in  ac- 
cord with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession  based 
thereon,  can  her  lessons  and  practice  be  an  example  to 
us.    The  statement  'thus  and  so  did  the  fathers,'  some- 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       49 

times  is  made  as  if  that  settled  all,  without  an  appeal 
to  the  Bible;  but  that  is  simply  making  the  fathers 
God,  and  their  acts  and  omissions  a  rule  of  life.  His- 
tory is  at  best  an  imperfect  realization  of  what  God 
expresses  in  his  Word  and  in  the  Confession."    On  p. 

22,  it  is  "Church  rules  and  acts  of  the  fathers  cannot 
override  or  displace  the  Word  and  the  Confession." 

The  main  question — Our  Seceded  Brethren  Should 
Also  Have  Remained.  Is  That  True? — Littooy  an- 
swered as  follows,  "People  could  not,  and  were  not  per- 
mitted to  worship  God  in  accordance  with  His  Word 
in  the  Netherlands  Reformed  (State)  Church,  any 
more  than  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  before  and 
since  the  Reformation.  All-destroying  unbelief  had 
gained  a  stronger  right  of  existence  in  the  Netherlands 
Church  than  in  the  Roman  Catholic";  and  on  p.  10, 
"Could  we,  and  can  we,  worship  God  in  accordance 
with  His  Word  in  the  Netherlands  Church?  Many  a 
time  our  father  Brummelkamp  repeated  the  words, 
'Show  me  the  place  in  your  Church  where  I  can  be  a 
preacher  of  the  Word,  that  is,  can  serve  God  according 
to  that  Word,  and  I  will  come.'  And  I  say :  Show  me 
the  place,  and  I  will  come. 

"Since  (p.  11)  we  are  agreed  that  it  is  an  unavoid- 
able duty  to  serve  God  according  to  His  Word  and  will, 
the  question  is  answered.  Could  we,  and  can  we,  serve 
God  according  to  His  Word  in  the  Netherlands  Re- 
formed Church,  then  the  secession  stands  condemned; 
then  it  is  true  'The  Seceded  Brethern  should  have  re- 
mained' ;  but  could  we  not,  and  can  we  not  do  so,  then 
the  secession  is  justified,  and  is  from  God.  Then  re- 
maining is  condemned,  condemned  as  unfaithfulness 
to  God's  holy  commands  and  institutions";  and  on  p. 

23,  "So  we  come  to  the  great  question  whether  in  the 
Netherlands  Reformed  Church  we  can  serve  God  in 
accordance  with  His  Word  and  the  Confession.  For 
tvhere  we  cannot  so  serve  Him,  there  we  may  not  be 
or  remain.  We  must  be  faithful  to  God,  even  though 
the  magistrates  and  the  edicts  of  princes  were  against 
it. 


50  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

"And  now  I  do  not  even  ask,  Do  people  serve  God 
in  the  Netherlands  Reformed  Church,  according  to  the 
Word  and  Confession?  but  I  only  ask.  Can  they?  If 
they  can,  but  do  not  do  so,  it  is  simply  a  question  of 
practice ;  in  that  case  the  church  is  not  corrupt  in  her 
foundations  (hare  levenswortel) ." 

Rev.  Littooy,  on  p.  25  of  his  pamphlet,  says,  "Every 
member  who  remains  in  a  State  Church,  lives,  accord- 
ing to  the  Word  and  Confession,  in  an  unauthorized 
communion,  in  a  heaven-defying  state,  and  under  a 
Satanic  power  which  does  not  permit  him  to  worship 
the  Lord  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  On  p.  28, 
he  says,  "Those  who  do  not  believe  in  the  Trinity,  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Covenants,  and  the  complete  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  in  your  Church,  are  desecrators  of  the 
sacraments."  On  p.  41,  he  says,  "The  State  Church 
forces  her  members  to  do  what  they  may  not  do.  For 
example:  She  forces  her  members  to  be  members  in 
the  same  Church  with  unbelievers,  to  vote  with  them, 
and  to  sit  at  the  same  Lord's  table." 

Not  a  reference  does  Rev.  Littooy  make  to  the  doc- 
trine of  solidaire  (common)  responsibility  of  one 
church  for  the  acts  of  the  other  churches  in  the  de- 
nomination; nor  does  he  rely  on  objections  to  the  use 
of  hymns,  or  other  points  of  practice  in  the  State 
Church.  On  the  contrary,  he  founds  his  whole  argu- 
ment for  the  Secession  Churches  in  Holland  on  the  ac- 
tive interference  by  the  State  Church  with  discipline 
and  doctrine  in  the  local  churches. 

If  the  logic  of  the  Secession  Churches  of  Holland 
is  applied  to  the  situation  in  the  Reformed  Churches 
in  America  in  1857  or  1882,  did  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  any  particular  legislate  so  that  the  Seceders 
at  Graafschap  and  Noordeloos  could  not  worship  God 
according  to  His  Word?  Did  the  Reformed  Church  in 
1880-82  interfere  with  the  discipline  or  doctrine  of  the 
local  churches  in  the  West  on  the  Free  Masonry  ques- 
tion? She  did  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  the  local 
churches  remained  in  supreme  control  as  they  ought 
to  be. 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       51 

The  writer  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  some  of  the 
Western  Seceders  claim  the  difference  between  the 
western  churches  lies  deeper  than  the  question  of 
hymns  and  Free  Masonry,  and  that  important  doc- 
trines are  involved;  but  the  correct  attitude  on  doc- 
trines like  Election,  Depravity,  Perseverance  of  Saints, 
etc.,  is  to  be  ascertained  from  Calvin  and  the  different 
Synods  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the  world,  and 
not  from  the  Seceders  of  1882  or  1857.  Reformed 
Churches  always  allowed  certain  liberties  on  doctrinal 
points,  and  even,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  the 
Seceders  of  the  West  or  the  Christian  Reformed  Church 
of  the  West  never  had  the  right  to  abridge  such  lib- 
erties. Dr.  H.  H.  Kuyper  of  the  Seceded  Churches  in 
Holland,  and  a  son  of  the  great  Dr.  Kuyper,  recently 
wrote  on  Freedom  of  Conscience  as  follows:  "In  the 
service  of  God  there  is  no  yoke  of  human  authority, 
and  the  conscience  is  bound  by  God's  Word  only.  The 
Confession,  Art.  7,  says  these  holy  scriptures  fully 
contain  the  will  of  God,  and  that  whatsoever  man  ought 
to  believe  unto  salvation  is  sufficiently  taught  therein. 
It  is  forbidden  to  add  to  or  take  from  the  Bible.  No 
man,  nor  an  angel  from  heaven,  teaching  otherwise, 
can  dictate  to  the  consciences.  Only  God's  Scriptures 
are  the  chronometer  by  which  all  spiritual  watches  are 
regulated.  Each  man  may  not  always  act  according 
to  the  voice  of  his  conscience,  but  is  bound  by  God — 
not  man.  The  Romish  church  interposed  its  church 
powers  as  interpreter,  its  priests  between  man  and  his 
Maker,  and  imposed  the  traditions  and  decisions  of  the 
church  as  really  essential  to  salvation.  Believers  of 
Rome  are  slaves,  but  Protestants  are  their  own  priests 
and  judges.  They  are  servants  of  God,  not  of  men,  and 
are  bound  only  by  God. 

"The  believer  is  in  the  last  analysis  not  bound  by 
the  interpretation  of  the  church,  which  has  no  con- 
trolling, but  only  a  serving  power,  and  a  man  may 
after  long  study  question  the  church's  position,  without 
violating  his  conscience.  The  church  must  respect  the 
consciences  of  members  who  honestly  differ,  and  if  the 


52  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORINIED      FATHERS 

difference  is  on  matters  not  involving  directly  the  ques- 
tion of  salvation,  we  must  be  patient  and  indulgent.  In 
questions  of  doctrine,  as  well  as  conduct,  there  must 
be  a  certain  freedom,  of  course,  within  defined  prin- 
ciples of  the  Scriptures.  Nothing  is  more  opposed  to 
the  Spirit  of  the  Reformed  Churches  than  when  offi- 
cers or  those  who  are  further  advanced  in  matters  of 
faith, — even  if  their  insight  into  Scripture  is  deeper, 
and  their  conclusions  more  correct — force  others  to 
bend  before  their  ideas.  Not  our  understanding  of 
Scriptures,  but  the  Bible  itself,  binds  the  conscience 
of  our  brother." 

Apart  from  the  Christian  liberties,  the  danger  of 
placing  too  much  emphasis  on  doctrinal  points  or  on 
discipline  has  been  exposed  thoroughly  by  the  scholars 
and  synods  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  the  unbalanc- 
ing of  doctrines  has  been  by  them  condemned  in  no 
uncertain  sounds.  The  attitude  of  the  Seceder  Church 
of  the  West  from  1857  almost  to  the  present  time  has 
been  marred  by  its  over-emphasis  of  certain  doctrines 
and  a  harping  on  discipline,  while  the  preaching  of  the 
pre-eminence  of  Love  has  been  the  rather  outstanding 
feature  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 

Discipline  and  doctrine  are  not  everything.  The 
Church  at  Ephesus  could  not  bear  them  which  were 
evil,  or  those  who  claimed  to  be  apostles  and  were  not. 
This,  however,  did  not  save  her,  for  the  Lord  said,  "I 
have  somewhat  against  thee,  because  thou  hast  left 
thy  first  love.  Remember  therefore  from  whence  thou 
art  fallen,  and  repent,  and  do  the  first  works,  or  else 
I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly,  and  will  remove  thy 
candlestick  out  of  his  place,  except  thou  repent."  This 
characterization  of  Ephesus  could  be  applied  to  the 
Seceders  of  the  West  rather  aptly  till  about  twenty 
years  ago,  while  some  of  the  Reformed  Churches  may 
have  erred  on  the  other  side.  If  the  Bible  is  the  Word 
of  God,  there  is  room  enough  for  improvement,  and 
while  the  divisions  and  contentions  continue,  placing 
wreaths  on  the  grave  of  departed  greatness  in  Holland, 
and  swearing  by  the  deeds  of  William  of  Orange  and 


VOICE    OF    THE       MOTHER    CHURCH       IN     HOLLAND       53 

Admiral  De  Ruyter  bring  us  nowhere.  The  division 
of  the  Hollanders  in  America  into  two  churches,  with 
the  same  standards,  and  largely  the  same  aspirations 
and  objects,  is  a  scandal  that  cannot  be  explained  to 
others  in  a  satisfactory  manner.  And  those  among  us 
who  persist  in  magnifying  and  protracting  the  differ- 
ences between  those  two  churches,  in  defiance  of  the 
rule  of  Christian  charity,  are  simply  airing  acquired 
prejudice,  without  regard  to  the  first  love  Ephesus  had 
lost. 

The  writer  desires  to  contribute  a  little  to  the  re- 
conciliation of  the  western  people  of  the  Reformed 
Calvinistic  persuasion.  It  may  be  objected,  however, 
that  the  following  papers  widen  the  breach  instead  of 
closing  it;  but  before  a  union  can  take  place,  it  is  im- 
perative that  the  historical  facts  out  of  which  the 
secession  here  arose  should  be  exposed  completely. 
Two  or  three  writers  among  the  Seceders, — the  authors 
of  the  Brochure  of  1869,  Rev.  Hemkes'  Rechtbestaan 
and  Rev.  Kuiper's  Tijdwoord, — form  the  basis  of  the 
defense  of  the  Seceders  as  incorporated  in  Rev.  Beets' 
History  of  the  Secession,  published  in  1918.  These 
works  are  not  history  in  the  best  sense ;  they  are  noth- 
ing but  defenses  of  the  secession  of  1857,  which  act- 
ually turn  the  historical  facts  of  1834-1857,  affecting 
the  ecclesiastical  relations  of  the  immigrant  Holland- 
ers upside  down.  These  writers,  in  order  to  furnish 
a  defense  for  Haan  in  1856  and  for  the  Seceders  of 
1857,  would  have  us  believe  that  Van  Raalte  and  the 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  "colonists"  of  1849-50 
turned  their  backs  on  the  standpoint  of  the  Seceders 
in  old  Holland  after  1834,  and  surrendered  the  dis- 
tinctive features  of  the  Calvinistic  Churches  when  they 
joined  hands  with  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the 
East.  These  seceder  writers  labor  to  make  Haan  and 
Graafschap  the  rule,  and  Van  Raalte  and  all  the  rest 
the  exception;  and,  as  a  result,  the  Secession  Church 
of  the  Netherlands,  though  actually  condemned  as  an 
impure  church  by  the  Michigan  Seceders  in  1870-71, 
has  been  pictured  as  the  "Mother  of  the  Secession 


54  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Church"  in  our  midst.  In  such  a  representation  of 
historical  facts  the  extreme  radicals  of  the  Dutch 
Secession  were  the  Secession  Church,  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  in  the  East  was  a  heretical  church,  and 
the  terribly  Labadistical  Seceders  of  1822  were  the 
Calvinists;  Van  Raalte  and  the  vast  majority  who 
stood  on  the  "whole  Handbook  of  1840,"  including  the 
Church  Rules  of  the  synods  from  Wesel  to  Dort  with 
the  great  Preface  of  Wesel,  were  rebels,  and  Dam, 
Krabshuis,  Smit  and  Schepers,  with  the  Rules  of  1619, 
and  insistence  on  feast-days  and  psalms  and  objection 
to  funeral  sermons,  picnics,  Sunday  schools,  etc.,  were 
the  regulars.  As  a  matter  of  history  nothing  is  far- 
ther from  the  truth.  The  Mother  of  the  Western  Se- 
ceded Church  was  really  the  few  Churches  Under  the 
Cross  of  the  Kampen  district,  seceded  from  the  Se- 
ceders, while  Van  Raalte's  people  represented  the  gen- 
eral principles  of  the  Seceders  of  1834.  The  Eastern 
Reformed  Church  was  an  experienced  church,  which 
had  already  fought  out  many  of  the  problems  which 
ensnared  the  Western  Seceders  fifty  years  later.  The 
dark  pages  of  the  Secession  in  New  Jersey  in  1822 
were  not  known  by  the  Western  Seceders  in  1857 ;  so 
that  they,  not  Van  Raalte,  can  be  accused  of  acting 
without  arming  themselves  with  proper  information 
and  without  due  consideration.  In  fact,  what  Rev. 
Beets  says  on  the  years  1846-1857,  based  on  the  other 
writers  mentioned,  is  not  based  upon  the  records  of 
that  time,  but  upon  what  was  later  produced  by  pre- 
judiced Seceders,  and  written  up  by  such  actors  as 
Revs.  Van  der  Werp,  Hemkes  and  Kuiper.  The  min- 
utes of  all  the  local  churches  were  largely  ignored,  and 
yet  those  minutes,  written  when  no  one  knew  a  seces- 
sion would  take  place  in  1857,  and  when  the  efforts  of 
the  different  consistories  and  the  classis  were  directed 
towards  unity  and  harmony  and  justice,  with  no  mo- 
tive to  injure  or  misrepresent  any  one,  are,  with  the 
Classis'  minutes,  the  very  source  of  genuine  informa- 
tion, where  the  loquacity  of  those  few  belligerent  mis- 
chief-makers had  the  least  chance  to  give  a  false  im- 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH       IN     HOLLAND       55 

press  to  historical  facts.  The  Seceder  writers  rely  on 
what  Van  der  Werp  and  Kuiper  gathered  at  Graaf- 
schap — the  place  where  knowledge  of  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  practice  were  scarcest.  It  is  remarkable  that 
the  Seceder  writers  mentioned,  had  never  read  the 
minutes  of  1849-57  of  any  of  the  local  churches,  except 
those  of  Graafschap.  Rev.  Beets  clearly  never  even 
read  the  minutes  of  the  Classis  of  Holland;  and  all 
these  writers  failed  to  investigate  the  record  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  from  1800-1850,  except  as  it 
appears  in  the  one-sided  statements  of  the  Seceders 
of  1822  and  1824. 

A  more  deliberate  misrepresentation  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  and  of  the  colonial  churches  of 
1847-57,  cannot  be  imagined  than  what  those  writers 
foist  upon  the  public  as  history.  The  writer  of  these 
pages,  after  he  had  read  the  Classis  minutes,  and  those 
of  the  local  churches,  and  the  minutes  of  the  General 
Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  and  after 
he  had  read  Brakel  and  Calvin  on  Secession,  and  com- 
pared them  with  the  Confession,  Catechism  and  the 
Canons  of  Dort,  was  astonished  at  the  effrontery  of 
the  apologists  for  the  Seceders  of  1857  in  claiming  that 
those  Seceders  alone  stood  on  Reformed  ground.  They 
were  not  Reformed,  they  were  off  the  track,  and  noth- 
ing shows  this  so  completely  as  that  those  Seceders, 
after  years  of  awful  contentions  in  their  own  ranks, 
only  found  comparative  peace  when  they  returned 
somewhat  to  the  practice  of  Christian  liberties  in  the 
government  of  the  Church. 

Whatever  is  said  in  these  and  succeeding  papers  is 
based  on  written  and  printed  records  of  the  times  re- 
ferred to,  while  whatever  bears  the  marks  of  inven- 
tion of  later  times  has  been  avoided  as  questionable. 
Reformed  doctrine  has  been  ascertained  not  at  Graaf- 
schap or  Noordeloos  or  Grand  Rapids,  but  from  Synods, 
and  from  writers  like  Calvin  and  Brakel.  In  consider- 
ing the  law  of  Secession,  the  writer  consulted  not  so 
much  what  Calvin  and  Brakel  said  about  Baptism  or 
the  Lord's  Supper,  but  what  they  said  on  Secession, 


56  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

which  is  the  point  in  question.  The  references 
throughout  to  Calvin's  Institutes  are  to  Allen's  trans- 
lation. Wherever  reference  is  made  to  the  acts  of  a 
Synod  or  Classis  or  Consistory,  with  assignment  of 
date,  the  meaning  is  that  the  matter  can  be  found  in 
the  respective  minutes  of  that  date. 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  these  and  succeeding 
studies,  characters  like  Haan,  Krabhuis  and  Rev.  Van 
der  Werp  are 'criticized  rather  severely.  But  they 
themselves  are  to  blame,  and  the  truth  of  history  re- 
quires that  we  do  not  make  of  these  men,  regardless 
of  what  they  did  and  said  in  utter  violation  of  truth,  of 
Reformed  doctrine  and  practice,  of  the  law  of  love  pre- 
scribed in  the  New  Testament,  heroes  of  the  faith  be- 
cause they  are  dead.  These  men,  particularly  Rev.  R. 
T.  Kuiper,  slandered  Dr.  Van  Raalte,  and  labored  to 
besmirch  his  record,  and  to  falsify  the  history  of  the 
Holland  settlement  so  as  to  suit  their  own  purposes, 
for  which  they  really  deserve,  at  the  bar  of  history, 
the  severest  condemnation.  There  were,  no  doubt, 
among  those  who  did  not  secede,  many  who  were  guilty 
of  harshness  and  slander,  but  the  writer  has  been 
surprised  at  the  mildness  of  works  like  Zwemer  and 
De  Bey's  Stemmen,  N.  H.  Dosker's  History,  and  Dr. 
Dosker's  Van  Raalte.  Both  the  Doskers  show  they 
understood  the  question  of  secession  thoroughly.  The 
"Levenschets  van  Van  Raalte"  by  Dr.  Dosker  is  a  mas- 
terpiece, whose  only  serious  defect  is  its  brevity.  N. 
H.  Dosker's  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
Dutch  language  is  good,  but  on  account  of  its  brevity 
does  not  give  the  subject  adequate  treatment.  Koppe- 
naal's  Toelichting  (1893)  is  excellent  in  its  treatment 
of  the  nature  of  the  Church,  and  this  author  was  the 
equal  in  knowledge  of  the  subject  in  hand  of  any 
clergyman  who  touched  the  subject. 

It  is  beyond  the  writer's  comprehension  why  the 
Reformed  Church  did  not  long  ago  republish  the  in- 
numerable articles  found  in  the  Intelligencer  and  other 
papers  to  which  her  people  had  access,  showing  the 
complete  information  she  had  on  every  move  in  the 


VOICE    OF    THE    "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       57 

religious  life  of  old  Holland  from  1810  till  1850,  and 
why  the  record  of  her  negotiation  and  experiences  with 
the  State  Church  about  the  Borneo  Mission  were  not 
scattered  broadcast  among  the  Hollanders  of  the  West. 
Is  there  nobody  home  in  the  Reformed  Church?  Why 
should  the  West  be  flooded  continually  with  the  lop- 
sided claims  of  Fraeligh  and  his  few  followers,  when 
such  an  excellent  defense  existed  in  the  East?  In 
the  West,  Reformed  clergymen  seem  to  know  neither 
side  of  that  question,  while  the  Seceders  know  only 
one  side,  and  that  the  wrong  one.  Frankly,  the  writer 
is  disgusted  with  the  failure  of  the  Reformed  Church 
to  publish  and  spread  the  perfect  defense  existing.  In 
1857  and  some  years  later  such  efforts  would  have 
been  futile,  when  some  of  the  poor  ignorant  Hol- 
landers had  itching  ears,  and  knew  it  all,  while  they 
did  not  know  the  first  lessons  in  the  school  of  Christ ; 
but  during  the  last  thirty  years  the  exposure  of  the 
great  failure  of  that  Secession  of  1822  would  have 
done  a  great  deal  of  good. 

Finally,  no  union  of  the  Western  people  is  possible, 
so  long  as  men  like  Van  der  Werp  and  Haan  are  canon- 
ized as  saints.  The  acts  of  such  men  must  be  tested 
as  much  by  what  Van  Prinsterer  wrote  as  by  Ver- 
hagen,  and  rather  by  what  Calvin  wrote  than  by  the 
writings  of  Hemkes.  The  Reformed  Church  and  the 
Classis  of  Holland  were  in  1857  the  existing  church, 
and  the  Seceders  broke  away  from  that  church;  for 
which  secession  they  must  stand  trial  as  disturbers  and 
inverters  of  the  established  conditions  in  the  Colonial 
Churches.  It  is  possible  that  the  reader  will  consider 
that  the  sentences  passed  on  the  leaders  of  the  Seces- 
sion of  1857  and  their  apologists  as  too  strong;  but  in 
a  historical  inquiry,  especially  dealing  with  religious 
concerns  of  vital  interest,  it  is  the  facts  we  want,  and 
nothing  but  facts;  and  the  Seceder  writers  have  not 
given  the  facts  of  1846-57  as  they  happened  and  ex- 
isted, but  have  given  a  perverted  statement  of  facts 
involving  seriously  the  reputation  of  the  men  of  1849- 
50,  Van  Raalte  included.     It  is  time  to  call  attention 


58  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

to  this  perversion  of  history.  And  if  the  strong  re- 
ligious principles  of  the  Western  Hollanders  are  to 
flower  and  produce  good  fruit,  the  fruit  can  be  in- 
creased four-fold  by  unity.  But  a  union  attempted, 
without  a  thorough  understanding  of  our  early  Col- 
onial history  on  both  sides,  cannot  stand.  The  Re- 
formed Church  can  afford  to  respect  the  desires  of  the 
Seceders  for  pure  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  co-oper- 
ate; but  the  separated  Churches  must  understand,  the 
sooner  the  better,  that  the  Secession  of  1857  was  abso- 
lutely wrong,  and  that  such  acts  as  the  casting  out 
recently  of  Rev.  Bultema,  a  clergyman  of  the  strictest 
orthodoxy,  on  account  of  his  premillenarian  views,  has 
no  lawful  place  in  a  Reformed  Church,  where  there 
must  be  no  lordship  over  the  faith  as  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  What  will  appear  to  many  as  a 
mere  quibble  about  the  "Kingship"  and  "Headship"  of 
Christ  does  not  justify  Bultema's  expulsion,  and  a  con- 
tinuation of  such  a  policy  will  defeat  all  efforts  for 
union.  There  must  be  liberty  to  work  out  theological 
problems  on  which  Reformed  Standards  are  practi- 
cally silent,  just  as  the  Fathers  evidently  desired  and 
expected  their  successors  would  do. 

The  writer  claims  that  such  of  the  following  chap- 
ters as  those  on  the  knowledge  the  American  Reformed 
Church  had  of  conditions  in  Holland,  and  on  the  knowl- 
edge the  "colonists"  in  1849  and  before  had  of  the 
American  Church,  are  really  fundamental,  although 
practically  unknown  today  in  the  West.  A  better  ac- 
quaintance all  around  will  work  miracles.  Let  us  all 
understand,  not  misunderstand  or  misrepresent,  the 
history  of  Dr.  Van  Raalte  and  his  people  in  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Churches  in  Holland  and  the  Reformed 
Churches  in  this  country.  If  the  writer  has  contributed 
something  towards  the  possibility  of  a  united  religious 
life  of  the  descendants  of  the  immigrants  of  1846  and 
later,  he  will  feel  rewarded  for  delving  into  one  of  the 
most  disagreeable  fields  of  our  "colonial"  history. 

The  writer  was  obliged  to  translate  almost  every- 
thing said  about  Churches  in  the  Netherlands  and  the 


VOICE    OF    THE     "MOTHER    CHURCH"    IN     HOLLAND       59 

Western  Churches  in  America  from  the  Dutch,  and  he 
makes  no  apology  for  the  use  of  the  words  "secede" 
and  "seceder."  Nothing  insidious  was  intended  by 
them,  but  other  exact  English  equivalents  for  "Af- 
scheiding,"  etc.,  could  not  be  found.  It  may  be  con- 
sidered presumptions  for  a  layman  to  attempt  to  lay 
down  the  law  on  "The  Church  of  God,"  "The  Local 
Church,"  and  "The  Police  Rules  of  God's  House,"  but 
these  chapters  are  rather  fundamental,  and  are  based 
on  recognized  Reformed  writers.  The  fact  that  in- 
formation on  these  subjects  was  lacking  in  the  works 
on  the  secession  among  the  Hollanders  in  America, 
and  that  the  writer  was  forced  to  extract  the  neces- 
sary information  from  European  and  Reformed  Dutch 
authorities,  is  itself  eloquent  evidence  of  the  dense  and 
profound  ignorance  on  these  subjects  among  both 
Western  laity  and  clergy.  The  lack  of  knowledge  of 
the  nature  of  the  Church,  of  the  limits  and  scope  of 
Church  Orders  or  Rules,  of  what  is  really  Reformed 
doctrine  and  practice,  and  of  the  Christian  liberties, 
is  at  the  base  of  our  ecclesiastical  contentions.  If  these 
two  denominations  cease  to  vex  one  another  with  non- 
essentials, and,  instead  of  hindering  each  other's  work, 
should  combine  and  cut  expenses  for  each  in  two  while 
doubling  their  good  work,  "The  envy  also  of  Ephraim 
shall  depart,  and  the  adversaries  of  Judah  shall  be  cut 
off;  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall 
not  vex  Ephraim.  But  they  shall  fly  upon  the  should- 
ers of  the  Philistines  toward  the  west ;  they  shall  spoil 
them  of  the  east  together;  they  shall  lay  their  hand 
upon  Edom  and  Moab;  and  the  children  of  Ammon 
shall  obey  them." 


AS      A      LILY      AMONG      THORNS  61 


IV.    AS  A  LILY  AMONG  THORNS 


WHAT  was  this  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
America,  when  the  Hollanders  of  1847  arrived 
in  the  United  States?  Was  she  an  orthodox 
church,  in  the  sense  of  Dort?  Or, — what  is  the  real 
point, — ^was  she  a  regular  New  Testament  Christian 
Church  fit  as  a  refuge  for  the  faithful  in  1850? 

This  church  was  brought  from  old  Holland  by  the 
settlers  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  at  the  very  time 
the  religious  atmosphere  of  Holland  was  cleared  by 
the  Synod  of  Dort.  The  Dutch  Church  in  New  York 
was  definitely  organized  in  1619,  and  is  therefore  the 
oldest  Protestant  Church  in  North  America.  All  the 
settlers  held  the  Belgic  Confession,  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  and,  since  1619,  the  Canons  of  Dort,  as  the 
Forms  of  Concord  of  Reformed  churches,  and  used  the 
Rules  of  Dort  in  the  government  of  their  churches  just 
as  the  churches  in  Holland  did.  They  were  in  fact  a 
part  of  the  Church  of  the  Fatherland,  transplanted  to 
New  Netherlands,  and  were,  with  the  German  Re- 
formed people  in  America,  attached  to  the  Synod  of 
North  Holland,  and  the  Classis  of  Amsterdam.  The 
Dutch  West  India  Company,  it  seems,  did  not  permit 
Arminians  in  New  Netherlands,  and  this  fact  prob- 
ably accounts  for  the  utter  absence  of  this  controversy 
among  the  Reformed  people  in  the  East  for  almo&t 
two  hundred  years.  All  this  time,  from  1620  until 
1780,  the  ministers  of  this  Church  were  educated  in 
the  schools  of  Holland,  and  were  familiar  with  the 
religious  literature  of  the  Netherlands, 

In  1664,  New  Netherlands  was  stolen,  in  time  of 
peace,  by  Charles  II  of  England,  and  although  recap- 
tured in  time  of  war  by  the  Dutch,  at  the  treaty  of 


62  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

peace  it  was  exchanged  for  another  colony  in  posses- 
sion of  Holland  today.  As  a  result  of  the  transfer  of 
New  Netherlands  to  Great  Britain,  the  Dutch  churches 
were  domineered  by  a  handful  of  Episcopalians,  backed 
by  the  British  government;  the  wide  Atlantic  lay  be- 
tween them  and  Holland;  several  ministers  were  ship- 
wrecked and  drowned  on  the  way  to  America;  the 
supply  of  pastors  was  inadequate,  and  many  churches 
were  vacant  for  years.  This  off-shoot  of  the  Church 
of  the  Netherlands  struggled  with  such  difficulties  for 
over  a  century,  till  in  about  1750,  she  split  into  two 
factions — the  Coetus  and  Conferentie  parties.  The 
Coetus  wanted  a  separate  establishment,  so  as  better 
to  supply  their  needs,  without  waiting  for  the  assist- 
ance from  Holland.  The  Conferentie  deemed  the  con- 
nection with  the  Church  of  Holland  essential,  and  op- 
posed sundering  the  ties  with  the  Martyr  Church. 

Both  parties,  however,  well  knew  the  thrilling  story 
of  Holland's  fight  for  liberty,  and  felt  that  the  Church 
of  Holland  had  literally  come  out  of  great  tribula- 
tion. They  cherished  the  story  of  Father  William 
vowing  to  drown  his  country  before  giving  it  back  to 
the  Spaniards ;  they  knew  of  Leyden  siege,  of  Mooker 
Heath,  of  redhot  tongs  and  thumbscrews  of  the  In- 
quisition, of  flayings  and  buryings  alive,  and  of 
charred  and  blackened  bodies  of  witnesses  for  Jesus 
lying  in  the  market  places  of  the  cities  of  Holland  and 
Belgium ;  of  the  sacks  and  sieges  and  the  lines  of  blaz- 
ing houses  and  villages  red  in  the  midnight  skies;  of 
Regnier  Klaaszoon,  the  vice-admiral,  in  1606,  sur- 
rounded by  a  Spanish  fleet,  and,  in  the  slanting  rays 
of  the  setting  sun,  last  seen  fighting  hard,  and  then 
blowing  up  his  own  ship  and  thundering  to  his  ene- 
mies, with  his  last  breath,  that  the  laws  of  morality 
and  Christianity  bind  states  and  hierarchs  and  auto- 
crats, as  well  as  the  common  people ;  of  Prince  Maurice 
of  Nassau  on  his  knees  in  prayer  before  the  terrible 
battle  of  Nieuport;  of  William  IK,  the  Stadtholder 
(later  King  of  England),  deciding,  when  from  the 
steeples  of  Amsterdam  could  be  seen  the  campfires  of 


REV.  J.  H.  LIVINGSTON.  D.D. 


64  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  French  invaders,  and  all  seemed  lost,  to  give  his 
country  back  to  the  ocean,  and  to  seek  a  home  in  the 
Indies, — an  incident  turned  into  glorious  English  by 
Macaulay,  as  he  wrote  that,  "Liberty  and  pure  religion, 
driven  by  tyrants  and  bigots  from  Europe,  might  take 
refuge  in  the  farthest  isles  of  Asia";  that  "there  the 
Dutch  commonwealth  might  comm^ence  a  new  and  more 
glorious  existence,  and  might  rear,  under  the  Southern 
Cross,  amidst  the  sugar  canes  and  nutmeg  trees,  the 
Exchange  of  a  wealthier  Amsterdam,  and  the  schools 
of  a  more  learned  Leyden."  William  did  flood  part  of 
his  country,  so  that  steeples  and  ramparts  "stuck  out 
like  islands,"  and  so  drove  the  invaders  away.  New 
Netherlands  heard  the  stories  of  Heemskerk's  and  Piet 
Hein's  victories,  heard  of  Tromp's  sweeping  the  ocean, 
and  never  wearied  of  telling  of  times  like  1666  and 
1672 — dark  years  in  the  annals  of  freedom,  when  the 
young  whelps  of  the  Reformation  doctrines  of  religious 
and  civil  liberty  were  at  bay,  roaring  from  their  dikes 
and  dunes  and  buckwheat  fields,  against  kingcraft  and 
priestcraft;  when  the  fleets  of  Catholic  France  and 
Episcopal  England  combined  to  crush  that  Dutch  hot- 
bed of  democracy,  and  when  the  thunders  of  De  Ruyt- 
er's  guns  in  fierce  combat  with  the  enemies  came  boom- 
ing over  the  North  Sea,  and  the  people  along  the  coast 
of  North  Holland  flocked  to  their  churches  and  prayed 
for  De  Ruyter's  victory.  And  the  Lord  God  of  hosts 
was  with  them  yet,  for  their  prayer  was  answered. 
A  few  days  later  De  Ruyter  bombarded  Chatham,  broke 
the  Thames  chains,  and,  his  guns  roaring  Londonward, 
brought  the  British  to  their  senses. 

What  saves  the  recital  of  such  deeds  from  the 
charge  of  vanity  and  idle  boasting  is  the  great  under- 
lying object  for  which  the  Eighty  Years  War  was 
fought ;  and,  it  is  no  wonder  that  dear  above  all  to  the 
New  Netherlanders  was  the  freedom  acquired  in  that 
great  war  by  the  forefathers,  whose  government  had 
declared,  "that  all  religions  ought  to  be  tolerated,  and 
that  restraint  in  matters  of  religion  is  as  detestable  as 
the  inquisition  itself,"  an  edict  that  freed  the  Dutch 


AS      A      LILY      AMONG      THORNS  65 

people  from  church  hierarchies  and  from  the  mediation 
of  priests  between  their  souls  and  God,  the  very  flower 
of  the  Reformation;  and  also  assured  them  of  their 
civil  liberty,  the  flower,  likewise,  of  the  Eighty  Years 
War.  Once  only  in  Holland,  the  government,  fearing 
Barneveld's  decentralizing  policy  of  States  rights,  and 
as  a  political  measure,  banished  the  Remonstrants ;  but 
these  were  soon  recalled.  Once  or  twice  only  in  New 
Netherlands,  for  a  short  time,  as  under  Stuyvesant, 
the  headstrong,  were  Quakers  and  others  put  under 
disabilities.  But,  as  Holland,  with  its  written  con- 
stitution, its  representative  assemblies  and  public 
schools,  all  based  on  the  authority  of  the  people,  was 
the  asylum  of  the  oppressed  of  Europe, — and  this  a 
hundred  years  ahead  of  the  rest  of  Europe, — so  New 
Netherlands,  in  this  respect,  naturally  became  almost 
an  exact  copy  of  the  mother  country.  The  Synod  of 
Dort,  too,  had  made  it  plain  to  them  that  the  highest 
penalty  for  religious  offenses  was  nought  but  simple 
severance  from  the  church,  so  that  the  civil  govern- 
ment could  not  punish  for  ecclesiastical  offenses.  The 
expression  in  the  Netherlands  or  Belgic  Confession 
about  the  duty  of  the  civil  government  to  root  out 
idolatry  and  false  worship  (Art.  36) ,  while  not  changed 
by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  is  sufficiently  negatived  by  what 
the  Rules  of  Dort  say  about  this  subject  under  the  head 
of  Discipline. 

Whether  considered  from  the  aspect  of  civil  or  of 
religious  liberty,  there  is,  without  doubt,  no  other  peo- 
ple in  the  entire  range  of  human  history  that  has  so 
much  right  to  speak  to  mankind  on  these  subjects  as 
Holland  has.  The  Eighty  Years  War  is  without  a 
parallel;  and  it  was  just  during  that  struggle  that  the 
Belgic  Confession  and  the  Rules  of  Church  govern- 
ment were  born,  both  as  it  were,  the  cry  of  agony  of  a 
suffering  people,  expressing  their  faith  amidst  funeral 
pyres  and  the  ashes  of  martyrs  for  Christ.  The  Belgic 
Confession  was  born  from  the  ranks,  while  the  other 
creeds  of  those  days  were  made  by  princes  for  the 
people.     And  it  is  not  strange  that  the  bulk  of  the 


66  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Reformed  people  in  the  East  clung  to  their  church, 
and  to  the  language  so  identified  with  the  palmy  days 
of  that  church.  They  are  sometimes  represented  as 
saying,  "Let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning,  and 
let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of  my  mouth,  if  I  for- 
get thee  0  home  of  the  Martyr  Church."  The  language 
of  that  Church  had  become  in  their  minds  the  ver- 
nacular of  liberty. 

This  love  for  Holland,  its  language  and  church 
literature,  the  Confession,  Canons  and  Church  Orders, 
which  were  really  considered  bulwarks  of  both  civil 
and  religious  liberty,  was  so  strong,  that  in  course  of 
time  it  begat,  in  some  places,  too  much  reverence  for 
the  faith  and  customs  of  the  fathers,  rather  than  for 
the  divine  influence;  for  doctrines  rather  than  for 
practice ;  for  forms  rather  than  for  deep  spiritual  life ; 
for  formalism  rather  than  for  piety;  for  worldliness 
rather  than  for  godliness.  In  all  the  other  colonies 
there  was  a  similar  deterioration,  especially  in  Con- 
necticut and  Pennsylvania.  But  about  1730,  Rev. 
Frelinghuysen  and  others  started  a  movement  which 
fortunately  resulted  in  the  rejuvenation  of  those  Re- 
formed Churches.  Moreover,  the  Coetus-Conferentie 
dispute  was  settled  in  1771,  and  the  language  question 
in  1792;  schools  were  established  at  six  or  seven 
places ;  the  reaction  against  the  demoralization  caused 
by  the  Revolutionary  War  had  set  in;  instruction  in 
theology  had  been  begun  by  Livingston,  Romeyn  and 
Fraeligh,  and  Queen's  College  (later  Rutgers)  had 
been  founded.  During  the  Revolution  the  Reformed 
people  were  almost  all  loyal  against  the  British.  Their 
churches  were  all  in  the  war  zone,  and  many  of  them 
were  burnt  down,  as  at  Canajoharie,  Ft.  Plain,  Stone 
Arabia  and  Raritan.  In  New  York  city  the  churches 
were  the  riding  schools  for  British  cavalry,  while  the 
Reformed  clergymen  were  exiled,  Livingston  at  Al- 
bany and  Poughkeepsie,  Laidlie  at  Red  Hook,  De  Ronde 
at  Schagticoke,  and  Ritzema  at  Kinderhook.  All  ex- 
cept Livingston  died  practically  in  exile.  The  Revolu- 
tion threatened  the  overthrow  of  religion  for  a  while, 


AS      A      LILY      AMONG      THORNS  67 

but  the  Reformed  Church  recovered  rather  quickly, 
so  that  by  1830,  she  was  one  of  the  best  ordered 
churches  in  the  United  States.  In  1771  she  became 
reunited,  in  1792  independent  from  the  Classis  of  Am- 
sterdam, and  in  1784  a  theological  seminary  was 
started.  The  Confession,  Catechism,  Canons  of  Dort, 
and  the  Church  Orders  of  Dort  had  been  retained  and 
re-adopted  as  the  Constitution,  without  change,  ex- 
cept as  to  the  Erastian  features,  the  "Jus  Patronatus" 
and  the  like,  all  translated  into  English,  with  Explana- 
tory Articles  relative  to  American  conditions  added, 
so  that  the  old  Church  of  the  Fathers  of  Dort  was  in 
1792  fully  equipped  for  her  work  in  America,  and 
stood  four-square  on  the  Standards  established  during 
the  Eighty  Years  War. 

The  rigid  adherence  to  the  Dutch  language  cost 
the  Reformed  Churches  many  members.  The  younger 
people  joined  the  Episcopal  Church,  mostly  because 
the  Presbyterian  Church  was  at  that  time  rather  weak. 
Qne  hundred  fifty  years  ago  or  more  it  was  not  so  plain 
that  the  English  would  prevail  in  the  East,  and  Hol- 
land had  at  that  time  one  of  the  largest  colonial  em- 
pires ;  and  we  can  excuse  people  of  Dutch  descent  for 
fearing  the  results  of  dropping  the  old  language.  But 
Dr.  Phelps  of  Hope  College  said  in  1866,  that  the  Re- 
formed people  in  the  East  did  business  in  English, 
taught  school  in  English,  but  for  too  long  a  time  re- 
fused to  do  the  Lord's  business  in  English.  Dr.  Phelps 
was  correct,  and  the  church  soon  found  foresight  more 
valuable  than  "after-sight,"  and  that,  as  Dr.  Livings- 
ton, the  main  human  factor  in  the  union  of  1771,  is 
ireported  to  have  said,  "We  have  a  good  charter  from 
heaven,  a  good  catechism  from  Holland,  and  the  whole 
continent  before  us."  The  Church  fell  in  with  the 
manifest  promptings  of  Providence,  and,  chiefly 
through  the  influence  of  her  schools,  made  remarkable 
progress  since  1771.  These  grammar  schools,  located 
at  Flatbush,  Hackensack,  Kingston,  Albany,  Kinder- 


68  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

hook,  Schenectady,  and  other  places,  really  made  the 
Reformed  Church,  and  were  the  feeders  of  Rutgers 
and  Union  Colleges,  and  of  the  Seminary. 

In  considering  the  origin  of  this  Reformed  Dutch 
Zion  in  America,  two  other  elements  must  be  empha- 
sized. A  Dutchman  or  a  Scotchman  must  be  caught 
young,  or  he  will  be  a  long  time  wrong ;  but  when  these 
two  get  together  and  form  a  church,  hell  trembles  and 
the  gates  of  hell  do  not  prevail.  From  Scotland  came 
people  oppressed  by  Roman  Catholics,  and  later  by 
Episcopalians.  Even  Dr.  Livingston's  great-grand- 
father fled  from  Scotland  to  Holland.  Fined,  impris- 
oned, their  churches  disbanded,  threatened  with  con- 
fiscation and  death,  came  these  Scotch  Presbyterians, 
first  to  Holland  and  then  to  America,  and  many  joined 
the  Reformed  Church. 

From  the  fiery  furnace  of  France,  came  the  Hugue- 
nots from  Bordeaux  and  Languedoc,  their  property 
and  their  children  even  stolen,  and  their  pastors  broken 
on  the  wheel.  The  most  Christian  ( ?)  King  of  France 
threw  dead  heretics  to  the  beasts,  required  recanta- 
tion or  torture,  and  roasted  in  slow  fires,  cast  into  pits, 
slashed  with  knives  and  tore  with  pincers,  those  who 
worshipped  God  according  to  the  Word.  These  Hugue- 
nots fled  to  Holland,  and  thence  to  America,  where 
they  joined  the  Reformed  Church.  They  were  called 
men  "with  the  virtues  of  the  Puritans,  but  without 
their  bigotry." 

It  is  true  that  the  Hollanders  who  settled  New  York 
and  New  Jersey  were  not  refugees  from  oppression  at 
home,  nevertheless  the  memories  of  the  horrors  and 
sorrows,  and  of  the  complete  victory  of  the  Eighty 
Years  War  were  strong  upon  them,  and  to  this  day 
are  a  source  of  just  pride  with  their  descendants.  If 
one  were  to  select  men  to  found  a  Protestant  church, 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  either  of  the  three  above 
elements  would  be  omitted.  These  Dutchmen,  who  re- 
ceived refugees  from  all  Europe,  the  Jews  included, 
were  Dutchmen  indeed ;  and  those  who  settled  in  Amer- 
ica were  joined  by  Scots  and  Huguenots,  driven,  with 


AS       A       LILY       AMONG       THORNS  69 

a  faith  tested  and  purified,  direct  from  the  depths  of 
persecution  to  Holland,  and  later,  in  the  New  World, 
they  together  formed  the  American  branch  of  the  vine- 
yard of  Dort.  "These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great 
tribulation." 

Such  is  the  pedigree  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 
And  let  us  not  forget  that  the  main  constituent  parts 
of  that  Church  came  to  America  from  the  scenes  of 
horrible  sufferings,  such  as  really  made  the  Church  of 
Holland  a  "Lily  Among  Thorns,"  and  the  part  trans- 
planted to  America,  with  the  refugees  from  the  sham- 
bles of  Scotland  and  France,  a  Lily  plucked  from  the 
mouth  of  hell. 

Even  as  America  has  become  the  melting-pot  of 
European  nations,  so  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  East 
became  the  melting-pot  of  the  most  tried,  the  strong- 
est elements  of  the  Protestantism  of  western  Europe, 
— the  Hollander,  Scotch  Presbyterian,  and  the  French 
Huguenot. 

One  of  the  profoundest  students  of  the  Reformed 
System  was  Rev.  Geo.  S.  Bishop  of  the  First  Reformed 
Church  of  Orange,  N.  J.  In  1884  he  preached  a 
sermon  on  Ps.  48:12,  13,  "Walk  about  Zion,"  etc.  It 
was  a  "Ten  Years'  Review"  of  his  church,  which  had 
been  organized  April  18,  1875,  in  Lyric  Hall,  and  was 
based  on  the  Five  Points  of  Calvinism.  In  his  dis- 
course Dr.  Bishop,  emphasizing  the  composite  char- 
acter of  the  American  Reformed  Church,  says  on  p.  9, 
"The  Dutch  Church  never  was  Dutch;  its  catechism 
was  written  by  a  Belgian  (1562)  ;  its  Liturgy  v/as 
prepared  by  John  a  Lasko,  a  Pole,  and  retouched  by 
John  Calvin,  a  Frenchman ;  its  Canons  of  Dort  were 
drawn  up  by  an  Ecumenical  Council  of  Protestant 
Europe,  in  which  six  English  bishops  took  part;  its 
first  church  edifice,  because  of  persecution  in  the  low 
countries,  was  Austin  Friars,  London,  and  its  first 
Church  service  was  on  English  soil.  The  Dutch  Church 
in  Europe  never  was  Dutch,  i.  e.,  exclusively,  as  the 
English  was  English,  and  the  Scotch  Scotch.  And  the 
Dutch  Church  in  this  land  has  never  been  Dutch.    To 


70  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

begin  with,  she  was  half  Huguenot.  More  than  this, 
she  was  part  Scotch."  "But,"  continues  Dr.  Bishop, 
"the  Dutch  Church  was  the  foster  mother  of  the  Puri- 
tans, who  after  twelve  years  residence  under  the  eaves 
of  Utrecht  and  Leyden,  sailed  from  Delftshaven,  men 
modified  and  moulded  by  that  residence  to  carry  from 
the  Dutch  the  germs — would  they  had  carried  more  of 
them — which  went  to  constitute  a  stable,  equable  New 
England."  Dr.  Bishop  also  acknowledges  fittingly  the 
debt  refugee  Scots  and  Huguenots  owed  the  Dutch 
Church  in  Holland,  and  speaks  of  "the  conglomerate 
Jleformed  Church  standing  upon  these  shores  for  300 
years,  strong,  united,  orthodox,  and  advancing  be- 
tween the  bald  sternness  of  Puritanism  and  the  meri- 
tricious  pretentions  of  Ritualism." 

Although  composed,  with  an  admixture  of  excellent 
Swiss  and  Germans,  of  three  main  elements — Dutch, 
Scotch  and  Huguenot,  these  elements  were  filtered,  as 
it  were,  through  the  Dutch  Church  in  Holland,  and  to- 
gether they  gave  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  the 
power  and  strength  which  survived  the  terrible  re- 
ligious demoralization  of  a  century  or  more  ago.  With- 
out disparaging  the  Scotch  and  Huguenot  constituents 
of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  and  recognizing 
that  Scotland  and  France  are  also  Fatherlands  of  the 
American  Reformed  Church,  it  must  be  stated  that 
the  old  church  of  the  Netherlands  was,  until  1792,  the 
official  organization  of  the  Eastern  Reformed  Church, 
and  that  her  spirit  governed  the  churches  of  New  York 
and  New  Jersey. 

The  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  while  the  power 
of  religious  despotism  was  being  broken,  was  the  fos- 
ter mother  of  them  all;  and  when  disasters  overpow- 
ered the  body  of  this  foster  mother  in  old  Holland,  in 
this  French-Scotch-Dutch  Reformed  Church,  her  soul 
goes  marching  on. 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  71 


V.    THE  THUNDERS  OF  DORT 


OF  ALL  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  none  has  been  so 
unmercifully  criticized  as  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
and  no  wonder,  for  President  Bogerman  declared 
after  its  adjournment,  that  its  work  had  made  "hell 
tremble."  This  synod,  called  by  the  States  General, 
after  years  of  opposition,  met  in  the  city  of  Dordrecht, 
Nov.  13,  1618,  and  adjourned  May  29,  1619,  after  180 
sittings.  There  were  delegates  from  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  the  Continent  and  also  five  from  Great 
Britain.  There  were  preachers,  elders  and  professors. 
John  Bogerman  of  Friesland  was  president,  and  Jacob 
Rolandus  of  Amsterdam  and  Herman  Faukelius  of 
Middelburg,  were  assessors,  or  assistant  presidents. 
Sebastian  Dammanus  of  Zutphen  and  Festus  Hommius 
of  Leyden  were  secretaries.  Each  member  swore  be- 
fore God,  before  beginning  the  work,  "that  during  the 
course  of  the  proceedings  of  this  synod,  which  will  ex- 
amine and  decide,  not  only  the  five  points  and  all  the 
differences  resulting  from  them,  but  also  any  other 
doctrine,  I  will  use  no  human  writing,  but  only  the 
word  of  God,  which  is  an  infallible  rule  of  faith."  This 
was  a  remarkable,  a  sublime  beginning. 

The  cause  of  this  synod  was  the  so-called  Arminian 
troubles,  which  had  shaken  the  churches  of  the  Neth- 
erlands for  years,  and  it  was  high  time  to  assuage  the 
storm.  James  Arminius,  professor  at  Leyden,  had  been 
the  spokesman  of  the  Arminians.  In  these  troubles, 
some  ten  years  before  the  Synod  met,  these  Arminians 
had  raised  havoc  in  the  churches,  and  several  of  the 
molested  churches  temporarily  went  out  of  the  organ- 
ization. The  Arminians  were  in  1610-11,  the  aggres- 
sors, and  therefore  deserve  our  sympathy  the  less. 


72  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

The  importance  of  the  whole  dispute  centered  round 
the  questions  of  free  grace  and  free  will.  The  Armi- 
nians  claimed  God  conferred  on  all  men  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  death,  and  if  some  shared  in  it,  it  was  be- 
cause they  applied  by  their  free  will  the  grace  impar- 
tially offered.  God  foresees  faith,  repentance  and  sanc- 
tity. Grace  is  a  "gentle  suasion."  Faith  is  an  act  of 
man,  but  God  does  not  help  effectually  in  the  will  of 
man  until  man  himself  moves.  Original  sin  does  not 
condemn  the  whole  race.  God  elected  those  who  by 
grace  believe,  and  rejected  the  impenitent  and  unbe- 
lievers, Christ  died  for  all,  though  none  but  believers 
are  in  the  enjoyment  of  reconciliation  and  pardon.  Man 
has  not  saving  faith  in  himself,  nor  from  his  free-will, 
but  needs  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  Grace  is  man's 
salvation,  and  none  can  believe  without  it ;  good  works 
are  ascribed  to  grace,  but  grace  is  not  irresistible.  True 
believers  can  stray  from  God,  that  is,  slide  back. 

The  other  party,  the  Gomarists,  or  orthodox  party, 
on  the  other  hand,  held  that  God  had  elected  some  and 
rejected  others,  without  regard  to  foreseen  faith;  God 
gives  the  elect  faith,  perseverance  and  salvation. 
Christ's  suffering  was  sufficient  for  the  whole  world, 
but  redemption  is  for  the  elect  only,  God,  through 
preaching,  quickens  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  man 
receives  power  to  repent  and  believe.  Perseverance 
of  saints, — that  Christ  never  lets  those  really  con- 
verted slide  back, — was  emphasized. 

It  is  plain  that  the  crux  of  the  whole  dispute  was 
absolute  predestination  or  free-will.  The  Remon- 
strants, or  Arminians,  made  salvation  turn  on  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  offer  by  man,  that  is,  made  the  elec- 
tion conditional  on  man's  free  will.  This  emphasized 
the  action  of  man.  The  Contra-Remonstrants,  or 
orthodox  party,  emphasized  the  sovereignty  of  God  and 
the  reign  of  God's  free  grace  in  the  conversion  of  man. 
God  as  the  omnipotent  Father  grants  faith  to  the  elect. 
Faith  therefore  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  man  is 
prone  to  all  evil,  and  cannot  believe  except  through 
grace — the  gift  of  God.    All  Arminians  and  all  Gomar- 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORl  73 

ists  did  not  go  the  same  lengths,  but  it  is  evident  that 
the  orthodox  party  feared  the  doctrines  of  the  Armi- 
nians  not  nearly  so  much,  as  they  feared  the  logical 
deductions  others  would  make  from  these  doctrines. 

No  doubt  it  is  true,  that  this  vilified  and  maligned 
Synod  of  Dort  recalled  the  Reformed  Churches  of 
Europe,  which  had  been  and  were  to  be  the  great  bul- 
warks of  civil  and  religious  liberty  for  a  long  time, 
back  from  the  road  to  religious  revolution  and  anarchy, 
into  the  old  paths  of  liberty  under  the  unchangeable 
and  fixed  standards  of  God's  own  Word.  The  Synod 
of  Dort  tried  to  enthrone  the  Almighty  and  his  grace, 
and  to  prevent  the  reign  of  finite  human  reason  in  a 
Universe  man  cannot  comprehend,  and  tried  to  estab- 
lish the  absolute  supremacy  of  the  Scriptures  as  the 
only  rule  of  faith  and  life  to  which  human  reason  had 
to  conform.  Not  a  reference  to  Calvin  or  Calvinism  is 
found  in  the  proceedings  of  this  Synod  that  had  sworn 
to  use  no  human  writings.  It  did  not  insist  on  uncon- 
ditional predestination  because  it  wanted  to,  but  be- 
cause the  Bible  clearly  teaches  it.  No  doubt  the  Synod 
was  right,  and  the  Church  of  God  will  find  sooner  or 
later,  when  the  human  "age  of  reason"  has  thrown  the 
churches  into  confusion  and  worldliness,  that  she  will 
have  to  return  to  the  principles  of  the  Fathers  of  Dort 
for  stability  and  life.  Not  that  these  Fathers  knew 
it  all,  or  spoke  the  last  words  on  all  theological  ques- 
tions, but  they  worked  out  thoroughly  and  therefore 
possibly  too  emphatically  like  Augustine  before  them, 
the  Five  Points  of  Calvinism,  which  were  the  burning 
questions  of  the  day.  , 

Did  they  reconcile  predestination  and  free  will? 
How  could  they?  Prof.  Miller  of  Princeton,  in  his  in- 
troduction to  Scott's  History  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  p. 
66,  says,  "How  to  reconcile  what  the  Scriptures  plainly 
reveal,  on  the  one  hand,  concerning  the  entire  depen- 
dence of  man ;  and,  on  the  other,  concerning  his  activity 
and  responsibility;  how  to  explain  the  perfect  fore- 
knowledge and  predestination  of  God,  in  consistency 
with  the  perfect  freedom  and  moral  agency  of  his  in- 


74  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

telligent  creatures,  is  a  problem  which  no  thinking  man 
expects  fully  to  solve."  And  Prof.  Miller  further  says 
that  Arminians  and  Pelagians  both  grant  that  all  men 
will  not  actually  be  saved ;  that  the  salvation  or  perdi- 
tion of  each  individual  is  distinctly  foreknown  by  God, 
and  will  surely  therefore  happen.  The  Arminians, 
therefore,  do  not  get  rid  of  one  particle  of  the  difficul- 
ties in  Calvinism,  but  they  only  place  the  difficulty  one 
step  farther  back,  and  must  meet  it  in  its  full  strength 
after  all.  "If  there  be  a  God  who  is  endowed  with  per- 
fect foreknowledge,"  Prof.  Miller  continues,  "and,  who 
is,  and  always  has  been  acting  upon  a  plan,  of  which 
he  knows  the  end  from  the  beginning — and  there  is 
such  a  Being,  or  there  is  no  God, — ^than  all  the  diffi- 
culty which  lies  against  the  doctrine  of  sovereign,  un- 
conditional predestination,  lies  equally  and  in  all  its 
unmitigated  force,  against  the  doctrine  of  foreknowl- 
edge and  certain  futurition.  Hence  the  Arminian 
scheme  settled  nothing  at  all."  The  Synod  of  Dort 
followed,  however,  the  line  of  St.  Paul's  arguments, 
and  placed  herself  squarely  on  the  Scripture,  regard- 
less of  human  reasonings. 

Pelagianism,  in  all  its  forms,  denied  the  lost  con- 
dition of  man  and  the  necessity  of  salvation  and  sanc- 
tification;  but  many  texts  like  Matt.  26:24,  Phil.  3:9, 
and  2  Thess.  1 :9,  show  that  all  will  not  be  saved,  and 
certainly  the  whole  basis  of  Christianity,  as  revealed 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  original  sin  and  the  lost  con- 
dition of  man,  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  and  Christ 
the  only  salvation.  Many  argue,  with  Dr.  Howard 
Crosby,  that  God's  sovereignty  does  not  make  man  a 
mere  machine,  that  we  do,  in  no  way,  detract  from  the 
sovereignty  and  grace  of  God  in  salvation,  when  we 
affirm  the  existence  of  free  will,  because  free  will  is 
also  the  gift  of  God.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  re- 
sponsibility of  man  for  accepting  or  rejecting  God's 
grace,  is  plainly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  many 
conclude  that  God  willed  the  system  of  holiness  and 
righteousness  in  which  man's  will  has  independent 
play,  and  that  man  wills  his  personal  destiny  under  the 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  75 

system.  The  Synod  of  Dort  also  said,  Canons,  Head  4, 
Art.  16,  that  God  "does  not  treat  men  as  senseless 
stocks  or  blocks,  nor  takes  away  their  will  and  its 
properties ;  neither  does  violence  thereto."  And  West- 
minster, twenty-five  years  later,  "said  the  same  thing." 
But  God,  with  whom  such  bagatelles  as  time  or  dura- 
tion do  not  interfere,  has  given  each  one  of  us  a  frag- 
ment of  duration  which  we  call  time ;  and  God  certainly 
knows  the  beginning  and  end  of  these  fragments.  He 
needs  no  foreknowledge,  and  this  term  was  invented 
merely  to  suit  our  finite  existence  here.  If  God  grants 
free  will  to  man,  and  if  he  knows  the  result  of  our 
lives  in  advance,-^as  he  must,  or  he  is  not  God, — we 
have  what  is  called  "certain  futurition."  God,  then, 
knowing  the  end  of  each  mortal,  does  not  prevent  the 
loss  of  some,  for  permitting  is  also  willing;  and  so  we 
find  ourselves  back  to  the  original  position — ^the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  Almighty,  and,  the  problem,  as  Prof. 
Miller  intimated,  remains  as  complex  as  ever. 

The  Synod  of  Dort  revised  the  Belgic  Confession, 
which  as  a  body  representing  all  Reformed  Churches 
in  Europe,  it  could  do ;  but  its  crowning  work  was  The 
Five  Points  or  Canons  of  Dort.  When  the  foreign 
delegates  had  withdrawn,  the  Dutch  delegates  as  a 
National  Synod  revised  the  Rules  of  Government  for 
the  Netherlands  churches.  But  it  is  the  Canons  of 
Dort  which  have  drawn  to  this  Synod  the  lightnings  of 
condemnation  from  all  sides.  The  Synod  took  texts 
like  Romans  9:18,  "God  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth,"  and  like 
Paul  answered  the  objection,  "Why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault,  for  who  hath  resisted  his  will  ?",  not  with  reams 
of  paper  and  ponderous  arguments,  but  with  Paul's 
words,  "Nay,  but  0  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
against  God?",  exactly  as  every  Calvinist  should  an- 
swer. Human  reason  cannot  comprehend  the  universe 
anyway,  and  God  left  us  His  Word,  in  which  He  told 
us  what  was  necessary  to  know  for  salvation,  but  left 
many  things  unexplained.  The  Bible  either  is,  or  is 
not  God's  Word ;  if  it  is  God's  Word,  we  must  take  it 


76  LANDMARKS       OF      THE       REFORMED       FATHERS 

as  supreme,  whether  our  reason  assents  to  all  it  says, 
or  not.  God  does  the  talking,  and  the  only  thing 
the  Synod  of  Dort  did  was  to  ascertain  what  God  said, 
not  what  human  reason  dictated.  And  therefore  the 
Synod  used  such  strong  expressions  as  "not  by  inquisi- 
tively prying  into  the  deep  and  secret  things  of  God," 
and  "without  vainly  attempting  to  investigate  the 
secret  ways  of  the  most  high"  (Canons  First  Head, 
Arts.  12  and  14)  ;  showing  that  we  cannot  understand 
or  harmonize  predestination  and  free  will,  but  must 
rely  on  the  Scriptures,  and  take  God  at  His  Word. 
Dort  did  not  invent,  and  Dort  did  not  discover;  Dort 
simply  stated  and  re-stated  correct  Reformed  doctrine. 

But  the  Synod  did  not  ignore  the  parts  of  God's 
Word  which  tell  us  what  to  do,  or  what  God  will  do  for 
us.  Unable  to  make  satisfaction  for  ourselves,  Christ 
did  it;  the  promise  of  the  Gospel  is  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Christ  crucified  shall  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life;  this  promise  and  the  command  to  re- 
pent and  believe  must  be  published  to  all  nations,  and 
to  all  persons  promiscuously  and  without  distinction; 
there  remain,  since  the  fall,  glimmerings  of  natural 
light,  but  what  neither  the  light  of  nature,  nor  the  law 
could  do,  God  performs  through  the  word  or  ministry 
of  reconciliation ;  that  in  the  case  of  those  who,  called 
by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  refuse  to  come,  the  fault 
lies  with  themselves,  but  that  some  come  must  be  as- 
cribed not  to  exercise  of  free  will,  but  wholly  to  God ; 
that  the  grace  of  God  does  not  treat  men  as  senseless 
stocks  or  blocks,  nor  takes  away  their  will,  neither 
does  violence  thereto ;  man  by  the  fall  did  not  lose  his 
human  nature,  his  understanding  and  will;  but  God 
spiritually  quickens,  heals,  corrects,  and  powerfully 
and  sweetly  bends;  that  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  exclude  or  subvert  the  use  of  the  Gospel,  the 
seed  of  regeneration,  and  the  food  of  the  soul;  that 
God  will  never  forsake  the  believer,  but  that  the  be- 
liever will  persevere  to  the  end. 

These  Canons  of  Dort  are  probably  the  most  re- 
markable document  ever  produced  by  a  synod.     The 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  77 

first  paragraph  has  man  under  the  curse  and  obnoxious 
to  eternal  death,  in  ten  lines ;  but  the  reverend  fathers 
could,  as  it  were,  hold  their  horses  no  longer,  and  they 
break  out,  "But  in  this  the  love  of  God  is  manifested, 
that  He  sent  His  only  begotten  son  into  the  world,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.  And  that  men  may  be  brought  to  be- 
lieve, God  mercifully  sends  the  messengers  of  these 
most  joyful  tidings,  to  whom  he  will,  and  at  what  time 
he  pleases;  by  whose  ministry  men  are  called  to  re- 
pentance and  faith  in  Christ  crucified.  Rom.  10 :14, 15 
says :  'How  then  shall  they  call  on  him,  in  whom  they 
have  not  believed  ?  And  how  shall  they  believe  in  Him, 
of  whom  they  have  not  heard?  And  how  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher?  And  how  shall  they  preach 
except  they  be  sent?' " 

Although  grace  reigns  supreme,  according  to  the 
Canons,  and  election  is  a  fact.  Art.  12  says  the  elect 
can  know  in  their  hearts  that  they  are  elected.  "The 
elect  in  due  time,  though  in  various  degrees  and  in 
different  measures,  attain  the  assurance  of  this  their 
eternal  and  unchangeable  election,  not  by  inquisitively 
prying  into  the  secret  and  deep  things  of  God;  but  by 
observing  in  themselves  with  a  spiritual  joy  and  holy 
pleasure  the  infallible  fruits  of  election  pointed  out  in 
the  word  of  God — such  as  a  true  faith  in  Christ,  filial 
fear,  a  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  a  hungering  and  thirst- 
ing for  righteousness,  etc."  So  that  the  Scriptures 
must  be  consulted,  and  preachers  heard,  and  the  means 
of  grace  utilized,  before  we  can  expect  to  observe  in 
ourselves  with  a  spiritual  joy  and  holy  pleasure  the 
infallible  fruits  of  election  pointed  out  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

But  enough.  The  Synod  said  predestination  is 
scriptural,  and  God's  grace  is  the  important  factor  in 
salvation,  but  predestination  cannot  be  understood  by 
finite  minds;  therefore  to  the  law  and  the  testimony. 
Art.  5,  Second  Head,  Canons,  says  that  the  promise  of 
the  Gospel,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Christ  cruci- 
fied, shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life,  with 


78  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  command  to  repent  and  believe,  ought  to  be  de- 
clared and  published  to  all  nations,  and  to  all  persons 
promiscuously,  and  without  distinction.  This  means 
that  the  Word  must  be  preached  at  all  times,  and  the 
Word  says,  "He  hath  chosen  us  (not  because  we  were, 
but)  that  we  should  be  holy,  and  without  blame  before 
him  in  love."  God  will  take  care  of  election,  but  men, 
who  cannot  understand  election,  must  take  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  rule  of  faith  and  life.  He  must  live  a 
holy  life,  which  means  an  active  life  of  good  deeds,  for 
he  is  an  accountable  and  responsible  being. 

In  the  Conclusion  of  the  Five  Points,  the  Synod  of 
Dort  refers  to  the  slander  of  the  doctrine  of  predes- 
tination of  the  Reformed  churches,  such  as  that  it  is 
an  opiate  administered  by  the  flesh  and  the  devil,  draw- 
ing minds  away  from  all  piety  and  religion,  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin,  makes  people  carnally  secure,  since 
nothing  can  hinder  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  and  the 
works  of  saints  cannot  aid  the  reprobate,  "and  many 
other  things  of  the  same  kind,  which  the  Reformed 
churches  not  only  do  not  acknowledge,  but  even  detest 
with  their  whole  soul.  Wherefore,  this  Synod  of  Dort, 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  conjures  as  many  as  piously 
call  upon  the  name  of  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  to 
judge  the  faith  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  not  from 
the  calumnies  which,  on  every  side,  are  heaped  upon 
it;  nor  from  the  private  expressions  of  a  few  ancient 
and  modern  teachers,  often  dishonestly  quoted,  or  cor- 
rupted, and  wrested  to  a  meaning  quite  foreign  to 
their  intention;  but  from  the  public  confession  of  the 
churches  themselves,  and  from  this  declaration  of 
orthodox  doctrine,  confirmed  by  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  all  and  each  of  the  members  of  the  whole  Synod. 
Moreover,  the  Synod  warns  calumniators  themselves, 
to  consider  the  terrible  judgment  of  God  which  awaits 
them,  for  bearing  false  witness  against  the  confes- 
sions of  so  many  churches,  for  distressing  the  con- 
sciences of  the  weak,  and  for  laboring  to  render  sus- 
pected the  society  of  the  truly  faithful." 

The  Synod  of  Dort  stumbled  and  stammered  when 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  79 

it  endeavored  to  speak  the  language  William  of  Orange 
used  forty  years  before.  Father  William  was  so  far 
ahead  of  his  time  in  toleration  that  we  today  are  hardly 
able  to  approach  him.  Like  Calvin  and  Beza  before, 
and  Maresius  and  Voetius  later,  Dort  made  the  mis- 
take of  being  willing  to  receive  the  assistance  of  the 
magistrate  "to  prevent  and  extirpate  all  idolatry  and 
false  worship,"  and  Dort,  therefore,  cannot  escape  par- 
tial responsibility  for  the  disgraceful  record  of  the 
execution  of  Barneveld  and  of  the  persecution  of  the 
Remonstrants.  But  barring  this  one  error,  Dort  was 
even  ahead  of  the  enlightened  Dutch  government  of 
those  days.  Dort  pleaded  with  Their  High  Mighti- 
nesses, the  Lords  States  General,  for  the  abolition  of 
the  "Jus  Patronatus,"  and  every  remaining  vestige  of 
state  control.  Dort  was  probably  the  most  intensely 
democratic  institution  of  the  ages.  With  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent 
and  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  Britain,  declaring  be- 
fore God  and  man  almost  the  pure  essence  of  dem- 
ocracy, in  the  midst  of  a  king-ridden  and  priest-ridden 
world,  Dort  was  sublime.  It  brought,  in  religious 
spheres,  kings  and  emperors  down  to  the  level  of  hu- 
manity, and  it  exalted  the  individual  into  the  ranks  of 
royalty.  It  tried  to  make  all  the  Lord's  freemen.  Dort 
repeated,  with  the  preceding  synods  of  the  Eighty 
Years  War,  in  the  second  article  of  the  Confession, 
"We  know  Him  (God)  by  two  means ;  first  by  the  crea- 
tion, preservation,  and  government  of  the  universe, 
which  is  before  our  eyes  as  a  most  elegant  book."  .  .  . 
Secondly,  he  makes  himself  more  clearly  and  fully 
known  to  us  by  his  holy  and  divine  word ;  that  is  to  say, 
as  far  as  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  in  this  life,  to  his 
glory  and  to  our  salvation."  Dort,  therefore,  held  the 
Scriptures  as  the  only  textbook  of  salvation,  and  far 
from  ignoring  science,  lauded  the  study  of  the  sciences 
as  the  first  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  Creator. 
Dort  knew  that  all  scientific  investigation  is  simply  the 
feeble  efforts  of  man  "to  think  God's  thoughts  after 
him,"  and  that  science  can,  therefore,  never  contradict 


80  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  revealed  Word.  But  with  all  this  scientific  peer- 
ing into  "this  most  elegant  book,"  and  with  all  this 
humanity  of  kings,  and  royalty  of  the  comman  man, 
Dort  saw  with  unerring  vision  the  absolute  Sover- 
eignty of  the  Almighty,  brought  forth  the  royal  dia- 
dem, and  crowned  Him  Lord  of  all. 

That  gross  calumnies  were  heaped  upon  the  Synod 
of  Dort  by  the  religious  public  all  over  the  world  is  well 
known.  Even  the  venerable  Dr.  Thos.  Scott  had  all 
his  life,  circulated  gross  misrepresentations  of  the 
Synod  and  its  decisions,  especially  in  his  "Remarks  on 
the  Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  so  that  in  1818,  after 
having  discovered  his  mistakes,  he,  "to  counteract  that 
misrepresentation,  and  to  vindicate  the  Synod  from 
atrocious  calumnies,  with  which  it  had  been  wilfully 
and  inadvertently  traduced,"  wrote  his  "Synod  of 
Dort."  He  found  that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  could 
"be  so  stated  and  explained,  as  to  coincide  with  the 
strictest  practical  views  of  our  holy  religion,  and  to 
encourage  and  promote  genuine  holiness,"  p.  30.  Dr. 
Scott  intimates  that  only  those  who  think  that  predes- 
tination alone  figures  in  the  Canons  of  Dort,  can  so 
traduce  the  work  of  the  Synod,  but  that  if  the  Canons 
are  studied,  and  the  real  importance  the  Synod  as- 
signed to  a  holy  and  active  Christian  life  is  observed, 
it  becomes  plain  that  nowhere  else  is  there  such  an 
insistence  upon  man's  responsibilities  and  his  duty  to 
see  that  his  faith  worketh  through  love. 

The  claim  that  the  British  delegates  were  dissatis- 
fied with  the  decisions  of  the  Synod  is  also  untenable, 
for  these  delegates  later  on  issued  a  joint  statement 
to  the  effect  that  The  Five  Points  were  "not  only  war- 
rantable by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  were  conform- 
able to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  English  Church, 
which  we  are  ready  to  maintain  and  justify  against 
all  gainsayers."  The  decisions  had  been  unanimous, 
and  Bishop  Hall  said,  when  he  retired  on  account  of 
illness,  "There  was  no  place  on  earth  so  like  heaven, 
as  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  where  he  should  be  more 
willing  to  dwell." 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  81 

The  Presbyterians  sometimes  refer  to  the  thunders 
of  Dort,  and  to  the  lurid  lightnings  of  the  venerable 
"grim"  Synod  of  Dort;  but  the  fact  is  that  the  pre- 
cision and  exactness  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  led 
to  many  difficulties  avoided  by  the  safer  general  terms 
of  the  Standards  of  Dort.  For  example,  Dr.  Mitchell 
in  his  lectures  on  the  Westminster  Assembly  says,  that 
in  spite  of  the  assertion  that  those  who  hold  predes- 
tination, as  set  forth  in  the  Westminster  standards, 
cannot  preach  to  their  fellow  sinner  the  love  of  God 
(to  men  in  general)  and  the  freeness  of  Christ's  sal- 
vation, all,  nevertheless,  have  done  so,  and  then  Dr. 
Mitchell  appeals  to  many  articles  in  the  Canons  of  the 
grim  Synod  of  Dort  (not  to  Westminster),  to  vindi- 
cate the  consistency  of  Westminster  divines  and  their 
followers  in  preaching  the  love  of  God  to  all  and  in 
presenting  the  offer  of  salvation  to  all.  Further,  West- 
minster spoke  of  "elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
regenerated,"  etc.  Dort  does  not  thus  cut  off  all  other 
infants,  but  directly  comforts  parents  with  the  assur- 
ance of  the  covenant  relation,  and  leaves  other  infants 
in  the  hands  of  a  merciful  God.  Westminster,  Chap. 
10,  Sec.  4,  is  also  too  severe  in  affirming  the  impos- 
sibility of  the  salvation  of  any  one  not  professing  the 
Christian  religion,  while  Dort  does  not  pass  on  the  sub- 
ject. Westminster  calls  the  pope  "Anti-Christ — that 
man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition,"  Chap.  25,  Sec.  6, 
while  Dort  has  nothing  of  the  kind;  only  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism  has  an  interpellation  about  the  papal 
mass  by  the  Elector  Frederick  (not  by  the  authors). 
Dort,  too,  is  not  as  severe  as  Westminster  on  good 
works  without  faith.  "In  all  these  articles  (of  the 
Canons  of  Dort)  we  find  no  classification  of  men  into 
elect  and  non-elect,  but  into  voluntary  acceptors  and 
rejectors  of  a  gracious  provision,  which  is  sufficient 
and  suitable  for  all  sinners,  and  which  is  sincerely  of- 
fered to  those  who  hear  the  good  tidings."  On  the 
other  hand.  Dr.  Schaff  says,  "The  great,  we  may  say, 
the  only  serious  objection  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession is  the  overstatement  of  divine  sovereignty  at 


82  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  expense,  if  not  the  exclusion  of  human  responsi- 
bility, and  the  over-statement  of  the  doctrine  of  par- 
ticular or  partial  election  to  the  exclusion  of  the  gen- 
eral love  of  God  to  all  His  creatures.  This  last  is  no- 
where mentioned.  It  is  a  confession  for  the  exclusive 
benefit  of  the  elect.  To  this  small  circle  all  is  bright 
and  hopeful,  but  outside  of  it  all  is  dark  as  midnight." 

The  last  few  quotations,  beginning  with  that  of 
Dr.  Mitchell,  are  from  Dr.  D.  D.  Demarest's  excellent 
little  work  Dort  and  Westminster,  where  the  subject 
is  worked  out  more  fully. 

What  cause  for  these  harsh  criticisms  of  the  Fath- 
ers of  Dort  therefore  remains?  And  yet  it  must  be 
admitted  that  even  among  the  Hollanders  of  the  West, 
there  is  so  much  misapprehension  and  misconception 
on  this  subject,  that  a  sound  conception  of  unity  of 
doctrines,  of  Christian  works,  and,  consequently,  of  the 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  real  science 
of  Church  life,  is  impossible.  One  party  will  always 
claim  that  the  Calvinistic  Churches  killed  the  spirit  of 
missions,  while  the  other  assert  that  philanthropic  and 
missionary  enterprise  destroy  the  force  of  doctrines, 
by  emphasizing  the  human  element.  Both  assertions 
are  wrong.  Even  the  old  Churches  of  Dort  sent  312 
missionaries  to  the  East  Indies  before  the  year  1723, 
translated  the  Scriptures  into  the  Malay  languages, 
and  had  large  religious  establishments  in  all  the  col- 
onies. After  1816,  it  is  true,  that  church  became  partly 
a  State  Machine,  and  reflected  the  colorless  rational- 
istic State  religion,  but  the  strongest  Calvinistic  Church 
in  America  eighty  years  ago — the  Reformed  Dutch — 
was  the  greatest  Mission  Church  in  the  country,  and 
the  air  of  the  Mohawk,  Hudson,  and  Raritan  regions 
was  laden  with  the  aroma  of  missionary  zeal.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  claim  that  Calvinism  is,  in  its  prin- 
ciples opposed  to  missions,  but  it  can  be  claimed  that 
the  duty  of  gathering  out  of  all  peoples  the  elect  of  God 
into  the  Church, — the  Calvinistic  idea  —  is  the  very 
root  of  missionary  enterprise. 

The  Reformed  doctrine  on  Missions  was  clearly 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  83 

laid  down  by  Rev.  R.  Pieters  of  Drenthe,  Mich.,  in  a 
powerful  sermon  before  the  Holland  Classis  in  1863. 
Pieters  had  been  a  student  of  Van  Vleck  at  Holland 
Academy,  and  of  Profs.  Van  Vranken,  Campbell,  and 
Woodbridge  at  New  Brunswick,  and  he  was  in  his 
day  probably  the  profoundest  student  of  doctrines  in 
the  Western  Church.     This  sermon  was  printed  and 
circulated  all  over  the  West,  and  created  a  deep  and 
lasting  impression.     The  ruling  thoughts  were:     The 
doctrine  of  election  gives  security  in  God;  the  object 
of  election  gives  the  Church  the  destiny  or  duty  of 
gathering  the  elect  into  her  holy  bosom.    The  doctrine 
of  our  lost  condition  and  total  inability  clothes  us  with 
humility,  and  fills  our  hearts  with  pity  for  our  fellow 
men.    The  doctrines  of  free  grace  and  the  perserver. 
ance  of  saints  make  us  thankful,  give  every  convert 
the  seal  of  the  Spirit,  and  make  the  entire  Church  the 
possession  of  God.    Paul,  ever  talking  about  election, 
was  the  greatest  missionary  of  all  time — "for  I  have 
much  people  in  that  city"  and  in  the  world.    Paul  set 
the  pace  for  the  whole  Christian  Church.     God  had 
chosen  the  Church  to  be  active  in  gathering  to  herself 
the  elect  from  among  the  nations,  and  with  the  world 
lost  in  depravity  and  inability,  the  sound  heartbeat  of 
the  Reformed  Church  was  to  be  found  only  in  strong 
efforts  to  gather  into  the  fold  "such  as  should  be 
saved."     Rev.  Pieters'  plain  intimation  is  that,  in  so 
far  as  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  world  may  be  de- 
pendent upon  the  efforts  of  the  Church  to  gather  them 
in,  we  as  a  part  of  the  Church  "would  not  be  able  to 
escape  our  responsibility  unless  we  do  our  utmost  in 
speeding  the  good  tidings  of  great  joy.    For,  he  says,  - 
"the  Reformed  Church  cannot  stand  before  God,  with 
her  Confession  and  the  heathen  world  to  be  measured 
with  heaven's  yardstick,   unless  she  be  a   standard- 
bearer  in  the  cause  of  Missions." 

Such  a  standard-bearer  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
had  been  since  1836,  as  Rev.  Pieters  knew  full  well; 
but  the  churches  of  1822  in  the  East  and  of  the  seceders 
in  the  West  since  1857,  have  been  conspicuous  by  their 


84  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

absence  from  the  Foreign  Mission  fields;  and  not  con- 
tent with  that,  have  leveled  their  guns  on  the  only  Re- 
formed body  of  Holland  descent  which  tried  to  be  a 
standard-bearer  "on  the  dark  shores  of  heathenism." 

However,  if  there  ever  was  an  ecclesiastical  body 
that  believed  in  the  value  and  indispensability  of  creeds, 
it  was  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  The  literature  of 
that  Church,  especially  during  the  period  from  1800  to 
1850,  is  so  packed  with  references  to  the  subject  that 
there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  Dr.  Schaff  came 
to,  that  she  was  too  rigid  on  creeds  and  doctrines.  Of 
course,  extremes  are  to  be  avoided  where  possible ;  but 
the  common  expressions  of  contempt  of  creeds  are  an 
evidence  of  pure  ignorance.  A  church  without  a  creed 
is  like  a  skyscraper  without  steel,  a  human  body  with- 
out bones,  a  sort  of  jellyfish  without  spine.  All  these 
creeds  are  expressions  of  what  the  various  Christian 
churches  understand  the  Bible  really  says  about  the 
truth ;  they  are  intended  to  give  the  logic  of  the  Bible. 
Without  expression  of  Christian  principles  in  logical 
connection,  the  truths  of  the  Bible  might  become  a  rope 
of  sand ;  but  with  clear  and  logical  expression  in  creeds 
the  golden  thread  which  really  connects  religious  truth 
is  more  easily  traced  and  observed,  and  the  fact  that 
"God  moves  in  a  mysterious  way,  his  wonders  to  per- 
form" is  more  easily  grasped. 

While  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  was  powerful 
in  creeds  and  insistent  in  doctrine,  no  one  can  accuse 
her  of  being  bones  without  a  body,  or  steel  without  a 
skyscraper.  The  secession  churches  in  1822  and  of 
1857  criticized  her  for  her  neglect  of  doctrine;  but 
these  secession  churches  were  so  strong  on  certain 
doctrines  that  they  lacked  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 
The  one  has  practically  disappeared,  while  the  other 
has  reversed  herself  often,  and  has  recently  even  de- 
clared, after  a  prolonged  battle,  for  foreign  missions. 
This  and  similar  acts  attest  the  correctness  of  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  1850;  and, 
gradually  the  Western  Seceder  Church  is  throwing 
down  bar  after  bar,  so  that  the  existence  of  that  Seces- 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  85 

sion  Church  as  a  separate  denomination  is  daily  be- 
coming more  and  more  unnecessary,  even  according  to 
her  own  acts. 

The  Reformed  Church  believed,  as  Rev.  Romeyn  in 
his  "Crisis,"  p.  17,  expressed  it,  that  "the  Gospel  is 
not  only  an  offer,  but  a  command.  'This  is  the  will  of 
God  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent.'  "  And 
if  the  Gospel  is  a  command,  it  is  important  that  the 
world  be  notified  of  it  by  the  greatest  missionary 
works. 

In  concluding  these  remarks  on  the  great  Synod  of 
Dort,  which,  as  Pres.  Bogerman  said,  had  "made  hell 
tremble,"  but  which  we  can  justly  say  also  made  others, 
not  in  hell,  tremble,  it  should  be  noticed  that  the  Episco- 
palians of  England  were  present  at  the  Synod,  and  that 
the  conduct  of  the  Dutch  delegates  towards  them  shows 
that  the  Fathers  of  Dort  were  not  nearly  as  exclusive 
as  often  represented.  The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
America,  it  is  true,  under  the  greatest  provocation  from 
the  attack  of  Unitarianism  early  in  the  19th  century, 
was  rather  exclusive,  and  Rev.  Paulison  tells  us,  in  his 
first  pamphlet,  that  he  prepared  and  delivered  a  sermon 
three  and  a  half  hours  long,  in  1829,  against  the  Metho- 
dists. Paulison  was  an  extremist,  it  is  true,  but  the  sen- 
timent of  the  Reformed  Church  of  that  day  was  rather 
severe  against  the  Methodists.  Still,  the  church  as  a 
whole  knew  little  of  a  bigotry  like  that  of  the  seceders 
of  1857  in  Michigan,  by  whom  every  church  except 
their  own  was  condemned,  and  for  whom  the  Fathers 
of  Dort  were  not  orthodox  enough.  The  learned  Dr. 
Kuyper  of  Holland  is  justly  given  credit  for  having  in 
recent  years  recalled  the  attention  of  the  religious 
world  to  the  greatness  of  Calvinism;  but  there  is  in 
his  writings  nothing  of  the  high-handed  condemnation 
of  other  denominations  which  disgraced  the  secession 
of  1834  in  Holland,  and  the  secession  of  1857  in  Mich- 
igan. Kuyper  found  it  necessary  to  go  back  to  Dort, 
to  Calvin,  and  the  Bible.  On  p.  14  of  his  Calvinisme 
en  Revisie,  he  says  that  the  Christian  religion  is  too 
rich,  too  many-sided,  and  too  comprehensive,  to  permit 


86  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

its  divine  fulness  to  flow  through  one  bed,  and  it 
chooses  therefore  several  beds  or  channels;  and  it  fol- 
lows from  this  that  the  child  of  God  may  stand  in  the 
conviction  that  the  bed  he  moves  in  is  relatively  the 
purest,  but  without  pretension  to  make  it  absolute  in 
such  a  way  as  to  cut  off  the  other  channels  as  not  be- 
longing to  the  stream.  On  p.  19,  Kuyper  praises  the 
Methodist  and  his  saving  of  the  sinner,  the  Baptist  and 
his  mystery  of  the  new  birth,  the  Lutheran  and  his 
justification  by  faith,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  and  his 
catholicity  of  the  Church. 

On  p.  21,  Kuyper  says  that  one  who  presumes  that 
predestination  is  the  main  feature  of  Calvinism  is  mis- 
taken; it  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  main  feature — 
the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God.  Because  Calvinism 
wanted  to  leave  God  God,  and  could  not  see  good  in  the 
will  and  work  of  man,  without  the  support  of  God's 
will  and  work,  it  confesses  predestination ;  and  because 
it  wanted  to  leave  God  God,  when  he  spoke,  it  confessed 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,"  and  so  on. 

Dr.  Kuyper,  on  p.  23,  says,  Calvinism  did  not  place 
predestination  in  the  foreground,  and  thus  give  a  blank 
warrant  to  Antinomianism.  She  placed  herself  before 
God,  to  let  the  light  shine  from  his  word  on  what  she 
had  to  confess,  and  on  the  path  she  had  to  tread.  "In 
Calvinistic  countries  passive  circles  and  Antinomian 
sects  arose,  but  the  power  of  true  Calvinism  slung  from 
her  arms  these  two  excrescences  as  if  they  were  poison- 
ous snakes." 

Upon  a  careful  survey  of  Dr.  Kuyper's  works,  there 
is  nothing  in  them  that  was  not  known  by  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  before  1850.  The  literature  of  that 
Church  shows  that  her  resort  to  the  Fathers  of  Dort  led 
her  to  the  same  conclusions  the  learned  Dr.  Kuyper 
came  to.  In  fact  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  drew  her 
information  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  of  Dort, 
and  was  mercifully  saved  from  the  contagion  of  1796- 
1815  which  ruined  the  old  church  of  Holland,  and  from 
the  wild  disorganization  and  demoralization  of  the 
seceders  of  1834,  who  vociferated  their  appeals  to  the 


THE      THUNDERS      OF      DORT  87 

Fathers  of  Dort,  but  in  their  ignorance  and  anger  tore 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  those  Fathers  to  shreds. 
This  difference  between  the  source  of  theology  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  (the  Fathers  of  Dort),  and 
that  of  the  Seceders  in  Michigan  in  1857  (some  of  the 
Fathers  of  1834) ,  holds  in  its  bosom  the  cause  of  seces- 
sion in  America  in  1857. 

The  seceders  of  1822  blamed  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  and  the  seceders  of  1857  did  likewise, — for 
doing  what  is  really  a  great  credit  to  her — for  slinging 
from  her  arms  the  over-emphasis  on  Predestination 
and  the  Antinomian  heresies  of  Dr.  Fraeligh  and  his 
Church,  as  if  they  were  poisonous  snakes,  and  for 
drinking  out  of  the  fountains  of  Dort  instead  of  from 
the  mixed,  and  as  yet  impure,  waters  of  1834. 

There  is  nothing  great  in  the  distinctive  features 
of  Scotch,  French  and  Dutch  Calvinism  which  the  Ref. 
Dutch  Church  did  not  know  in  1850,  and  the  glorious 
ravings  of  Bancroft  and  Neal  ninety  years  ago  about 
the  greatness  of  Calvinism  had  for  years  been  a 
familiar  sound  in  the  "Reformed  Dutch  Zion"  of  the 
Hudson  and  Raritan  valleys. 


88  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


VI.    "COR  ECCLESIAE" 


TO  THE  Reformed,  or  the  Calvinist,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  time  with  the  Almighty.  All  time, 
while  either  past,  present  or  future  to  man,  is 
with  the  Lord,  an  eternal  present,  an  everlasting  now. 
Even  Calvin,  speaking  of  foreknowledge,  says.  Insti- 
tutes, Book  III,  p.  145,  "When  we  attribute  fore- 
knowledge to  God,  we  mean  that  all  things  have  ever 
been,  and  perpetually  remain,  before  His  eyes,  so  that 
to  His  knowledge  nothing  is  future  or  past,  but  all 
things  are  present ;  and  present  in  such  a  manner,  that 
He  does  not  merely  conceive  of  them  from  ideas  formed 
in  His  mind,  but  really  beholds  and  sees  them,  as  if 
actually  placed  before  Him."  To  such  a  God  predes- 
tination is  no  problem  at  all. 

The  Reformed  Church  believes  that  all  humanity 
is  in  ruins  as  a  result  of  the  fall  and  that  if  one  man 
were  saved,  it  would  be  one  more  than  what  humanity 
deserves; — a  world  of  moil  and  toil,  thorns  and 
thistles ;  horrors  of  war ;  animals  at  enmity ;  tears  and 
sorrow;  and  in  a  few  years  the  grave, — a  world  every 
note  of  whose  threnody  is  written  in  the  minor  key. 
And  from  this  fallen  world,  whose  knowledge  of  the 
Infinite  and  His  creation  is  nothing  but  "glimmerings" 
of  knowledge,  God  by  pure  grace  elects  some, — how 
many  no  man  knows.  This  election  is  evident  from  the 
Scriptures,  not  from  human  reason,  and  neither  Calvin 
nor  the  Synod  of  Dort  therefore  crucified  the  love  of 
God  on  a  cross  of  logic.  They  took  the  Bible  as  sole 
authority.  Hence,  while  admitting  the  doctrine  of 
election,  they  warn  against  the  idea  of  trying  to  under- 
stand it.  Calvin  in  his  Institutes  does  not  feature  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  as  the  paramount  doctrine. 


CORECCLESIAE  89 

He  treats  it  in  a  few  short  chapters,  as  one  of  the 
truths  of  religion  found  in  the  Bible.  The  Institutes  is 
a  running  commentary  on  the  Apostles  Creed,  and  a 
manual  of  evangelical  truth,  not  an  exposition  of  pre- 
destination. 

Calvin  says  that  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject 
much  perplexity  is  caused  by  human  curiosity,  which 
wanders  into  forbidden  labyrinths,  and  wants  to  ex- 
plore Divine  secrets,  although  the  doctrine  should  be 
preached  with  great  sobriety  and  moderation,  as  part 
of  the  truth,  revealed  for  a  purpose.  On  p.  167,  Vol.  II 
of  the  Institutes,  he  says  Divine  justice  is  too  high  to 
be  measured  by  human  standards,  or  to  be  understood 
by  the  littleness  of  the  human  mind,  which,  failing 
to  find  a  reason,  takes  recourse  to  censure.  God  does 
not  accommodate  the  greatness  of  all  His  works  to  the 
ignorance  of  man,  as  though  they  were  necessarily 
wrong  because  concealed  from  carnal  view,  p.  168. 
"Whenever  you  hear  the  glory  of  God  mentioned,  think 
of  His  justice,"  even  in  predestination.  "What  de- 
serves praise  must  be  just."  "Man  falls  by  appoint- 
ment of  God,  but  falls  by  his  own  guilt."  "Ignorance 
of  things  not  possible  or  lawful  to  know,  is  to  be 
learned."  God  offers  His  mercy  to  all  who  desire  and 
seek  it,  which  none  do  but  those  whom  He  has  enlight- 
ened, and  He  enlightens  all  whom  He  has  predestined 
to  salvation,  p.  197.  Augustine  is  quoted  as  saying, 
"It  is  acting  a  most  perverse  part,  to  set  up  the  meas- 
ure of  human  justice  as  the  standards  by  which  to 
measure  the  justice  of  God."  So  it  is  with  predestina- 
tion. 

Calvin,  also,  builds  on  such  texts  as  "God  hath  not 
called  us  to  uncleanness,"  and  "we  are  His  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which 
God  hath  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them."  His 
whole  theory  is  that  man  is  so  finite  and  God  so  in- 
finite, that  man  is  totally  ignorant  and  unable.  Man 
is  but  just  opening  his  eyes  to  the  vastness  of  God's 
greatness  and  goodness,  when  his  eyes  close  again  in 
death.    God  elects  from  the  ruins  of  the  fall  some,  in 


90  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

His  incomprehensible  justness,  by  His  free  grace,  not 
to  be  unclean,  but  unto  good  works  ordained  by  God 
to  walk  in  them. 

But  the  Scriptures  tell  us  to  seek  and  we  shall  find, 
and  knock  and  it  shall  be  opened.  All  are  not  saved; 
but  men  are  commanded  to  make  their  calling  and 
election  sure;  and  this  does  not  call  for  sloth  and 
security,  but  action  and  work.  Shall  not  a  man  in 
danger  of  being  lost,  do  his  utmost  to  make  sure  of  his 
own  safety?  And  the  only  way  is  Christ  crucified.  The 
Bible  shows  the  way, — go  to  church,  read  the  Bible, 
and  soon  seeking  faith  becomes  assured  faith,  through 
the  Spirit.  Conviction  of  sin  and  deliverance  makes 
the  sinner  humble  and  thankful.  If  he  is  elected  out 
of  a  fallen  race,  by  God's  free  grace,  he  pleads  not  his 
own  merits.  But  to  have  the  assurance  of  election,  a 
Christian's  life  and  works  are  accurately  prescribed  in 
the  Scriptures.  When  the  signs  of  faith,  hope  and  love 
are  present  in  our  lives,  the  Spirit  has  given  us  such 
assurance.  The  act  of  believing  in  itself,  good  works, 
and  holiness  are  not  the  cause  of  election,  but  are,  on 
the  contrary,  the  results  and  fruits  of  election,  and, 
therefore,  the  evidence  of  election,  while  all  are  the 
gifts  of  God. 

The  Calvinistic  system  leaves,  of  course,  no  room 
for  the  mediation  of  priests  between  God  and  man. 
Man  is  dealt  with  directly,  and  hence  this  importance 
of  the  individual  does  not  allow  rulers  and  govern- 
ments any  more  control  over  a  man  than  is  necessary. 
Hence  the  moral  law  must  be  the  rule  of  life  for  peo- 
ples as  well  as  for  persons,  and  so  the  civil  rights  of 
individuals  are  to  be  respected.  For  this  reason  the 
fierce  fights  by  William  the  Silent,  Calvin,  Knox  and 
Cromwell  were  based  on  Calvinistic  principles.  His- 
torians, inclined  at  first  view  to  consider  Calvinism 
harsh,  unreasonable,  and  fatal  to  morality,  are  aston- 
ished, upon  fuller  investigation,  to  find  that  it  has  pro- 
duced the  finest  results  in  the  history  of  liberty.  And 
the  reason  is  that  the  individual  under  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine is  considered  as  good  as  a  king  or  emperor. 


CORECCLESIAE  91 

Jefferson  voiced  the  doctrine  that  all  powers  given 
by  God  to  man  are  lodged  in  the  people,  and  that  gov- 
ernments have  only  such  powers,  and  none  other,  as  are 
conferred  by  the  people.  All  other  powers  are  reserved 
to  the  people ;  in  fact  people  can  delegate  such  powers 
only  as  are  necessary  to  conserve  the  largest  individual 
liberties  consistent  with  the  general  good.  Calvinism 
centuries  ago  applied  the  same  principles  in  the  re- 
ligious world,  and  as  a  result  almost  succeeded  in  an- 
ticipating the  work  of  Jefferson  in  political  affairs. 

However,  this  doctrine  of  election  is  often  magni- 
fied out  of  all  proportion,  so  that  sinful  life  is  forgot- 
ten. Some  people  rely  on  election,  and  do  not  care  how 
they  live.  Such  are  called  Antinomians,  that  is,  the 
moral  law  does  not  apply  to  them,  for  they  were  elected 
anyway.  This  stretching  of  the  doctrine  so  far  was 
really  the  error  of  Dr.  Fraeligh  and  the  Seceders  of 
1822,  and  also  of  some  of  the  later  Seceders  in  Michi- 
gan in  1857.  Instead  of  making  their  calling  and  elec- 
tion sure  by  holiness  in  life  and  acts,  humanly  speak- 
ing, they  are  liable  to  become  mere  dead  orthodox  tim- 
ber in  the  Church.  This  magnifying  election  into  an 
excuse  for  inactivity  is  heresy  of  the  worst  kind.  And 
since  there  is  so  much  misconception  on  this  point, 
something  must  be  said  to  explain  the  proper  relation 
of  the  doctrine. 

It  is  good  Reformed  doctrine  that,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, the  question  of  election  should  not  be  raised  at 
all.  No  man  has  any  reason  to  think  that  he  is  not 
elected.  The  chief  of  sinners  can  be  saved.  The  Bible 
message  is  "Come"  and  "believe,"  and  soon  God's 
Spirit  will  grant  assurance  even  of  election.  The  doc- 
trine of  election  is  not  intended  as  a  revelation  to  the 
unconverted,  but  is,  as  it  were,  God's  cipher-dispatch 
to  those  who  have  already  some  assurance  of  saint- 
ship. 

Groen  Van  Prinsterer  in  the  Netherlands,  for  ex- 
ample, was  often  accused  of  sacrificing  what  is  called 
by  many,  rather  inaccurately,  "Cor  Ecclesiae"  (the 
heart  of  the  Church),  the  doctrine  of  election,  in  his 


92  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

many  brochures  against  the  government-made  church 
rules.  But  he  replied  that  when  an  outlaw  was  trying 
to  force  him  out  of  his  house,  his  neighbors  when  they 
came  to  his  assistance,  did  not  first  spend  a  few  days 
to  investigate  his  title,  but  at  once  attacked  the  outlaw. 
In  other  words,  we  must  endeavor  to  get  into  and  re- 
main in  our  house,  and  rely  on  our  title  in  the  abstract 
or  register's  office.  Van  Prinsterer's  inference,  at  the 
time,  was  plain;  it  meant  really  Christian  work  and 
endeavor,  leaving  the  title — election — to  God;  use  our 
house,  and  do  good  with  it,  and  not  talk  about  the  title 
all  the  time.  As  the  use  of  property  is  evidence  or  as- 
surance of  good  title,  so  good  works,  etc.,  are  evidence 
or  assurance  of  election. 

And  coming  nearer  home,  let  us  see  how  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  explains  the  question.  The 
Classis  of  New  Brunswick,  in  the  General  Synod  of 
1834,  took  Prof.  Alexander  McClelland  of  the  N.  B. 
Seminary  to  task,  for  his  throwing  the  responsibility 
upon  sinners,  and  not  on  God,  in  his  printed  sermon  on 
Spiritual  Renovation.  Seventeen  pages  of  the  minutes 
are  devoted  to  the  question,  and  it  is  strange  that  the 
ecclesiastical  scavengers  among  the  western  Hollanders 
failed  to  discover  this  choice  morsel.  The  Synod 
criticized  the  sermon,  but  Prof.  McClelland  made  an 
interesting  explanatory  statement,  which  showed  un- 
equivocal approbation  of  the  Church  Standards,  and 
in  which  he  said,  "I  believe  that  God  has  made  such  a 
gracious  provision  for  sinful  men,  that  a  solid  founda- 
tion is  laid  for  a  free  offer  of  salvation  to  all  indis- 
criminately, and  for  asserting  that  every  sinner  is  the 
cause  of  his  own  destruction.  I  believe  that,  though 
unable  to  restore  the  image  of  God  in  his  soul,  he  can- 
not plead  his  inability  as  an  excuse  for  continuing  in 
impenitence.  There  are  external  and  internal  aids  put 
within  his  reach,  viz.,  the  word  of  truth,  the  common 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  mercy  seat,  in 
the  diligent,  honest  and  unwearied  use  of  which  he  may 
expect  to  receive  higher  assurance;  or,  as  our  Confes- 
sion expresses  it,  "richer  grace,"  with  the  same  cer- 


CORECCLESIAE  93 

tainty  that  the  labors  of  the  diligent  in  common  life 
are  crowned  with  blessing  (p.  316).  *  *  *  So 
that  the  simple  and  precise  reason  why  the  offer  of 
salvation  meets  with  such  a  different  reception  from 
men,  is  the  solution  given  by  the  apostle — ^the  election 
hath  obtained  it,  the  rest  are  blinded  (p.  316).  *  *  * 
The  foundation  of  the  moral  obligation  which  I  must 
press  upon  my  unregenerated  hearer,  when  I  tell  him 
to  repent  and  believe  the  Gospel,  is  the  consideration 
of  God  in  His  rectoral  or  moral  capacity  only.  With 
the  secret  purposes  of  the  Holy  One,  and  the  mysteri- 
ous agencies  He  employes  in  accomplishing  them,  I 
have  no  concern.  Whether  a  sinner  within  reach  of 
the  preacher's  voice  be  elect  or  non-elect,  is  a  question 
that  should  never  cross  his  imagination.  So  sure  as 
he  parleys  with  it  a  single  moment,  it  will  cast  its  dark 
shadows  over  him  in  his  ministerial  work.  'Secret 
things  belong  unto  the  Lord,  but  the  things  which  are 
revealed  belong  to  us  and  our  children,  that  we  may 
do  them.'  The  'things  that  are  revealed'  are  the  great 
principles  of  the  Gospel  as  a  gracious  provision  for 
sinful  men.  They  are  the  doctrines  of  an  all  sufficient 
Savior,  a  sanctifying  Spirit,  and  a  glorious  immortal- 
ity. Means  and  helps  of  every  kind  suited  to  a  rational 
nature  are  supplied,  and  an  unqualified  intimation  is 
given,  that  'if  we  seek,  we  shall  find,  if  we  knock,  it 
shall  be  opened'." 

The  professor  also  refers  to  sideglances  by  preach- 
ers and  hearers  into  the  deep  and  unfathomless  abyss 
of  the  natural  government  of  God  as  little  less  than  a 
gross  absurdity,  and  finds  no  sermon  constructed  on 
such  principles  in  the  Word  of  God.  "Moses  told  the 
children  of  Israel  to  go  up  and  possess  the  land,  though 
they  were  destined,  with  few  exceptions,  to  fall  in  the 
wilderness,  and  Jesus  preached  to  His  murderers, 
though  He  knew  that  for  this  end  He  came  into  the 
world,  that  He  might  perish  by  their  hands.  Election 
I  believe  not  only  to  be  true,  but  a  godly  and  edifying 
doctrine.  It  must  be  exhibited,  however,  in  its  proper 
connections — resembling  those  patent  medicines  which 


94  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

injudiciously  administered,  kill  instead  of  cure."  The 
professor  says  he  omitted  reference  to  election  in  his 
sermon  purposely,  for  he  wanted  to  press  upon  the  sin- 
ner his  privileges  and  responsibilities,  without  awak- 
ening new  objections  in  his  mind. 

"Such  prudence  and  circumspection,"  the  profes- 
sor continued,  "I  find  prescribed  to  me  in  the  admirable 
canon  of  our  church  on  Divine  Predestination — as  the 
doctrine  of  election  is  clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures 
of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  so  it  is  still  to  be 
published,  in  due  time  and  place,  in  the  Church  of  God, 
for  which  it  was  peculiarly  designed;  provided  it  be 
done  with  reverence,  in  the  spirit  of  discretion  and 
piety,  for  the  glory  of  God's  most  holy  name,  and  for 
enlivening  and  comforting  His  people,  without  vainly 
attempting  to  investigate  the  secret  ways  of  the  Most 
High." 

The  General  Synod  and  the  Classis  of  New  Bruns- 
wick accepted  Prof.  McClelland's  platform,  and  bowed 
in  submission  to  his  lucid  statement  of  a  perplexing 
and  ever  recurring  problem. 

During  the  years  1856-58,  The  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  published  many  little  books  on  "Discipline," 
"Ruling  Elders,"  etc.  Book  No.  2  contains  a  short  his- 
tory of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  the  Canons  of  Dort, 
with  the  "Rejection  of  Errors"  by  that  Synod.  Bound 
in  with  the  little  volume  is  much  matter  on  the  sover- 
eignty of  God,  and  also  No.  27,  the  terrific  sermon,  de- 
livered in  Scotland  a  few  centuries  ago,  by  Rev.  Dur- 
ham on  "Christ  stricken  for  His  People."  The  Synod 
of  Dort  or  the  Westminster  Assembly  could  not  have 
improved  on  the  orthodoxy  of  these  little  books.  Rev. 
Durham's  sermon  contains  all  the  arguments  for  and 
against  predestination,  and  he  shows  the  awful  im- 
portance of  the  doctrine,  as  the  Synod  of  Dort  did ;  but 
in  the  conclusion  he  comes  to  the  following  resume : 
"Some  object  that  they  do  not  know  whether  Christ 
died  for  them,  or  whether  they  are  elected.  And  so 
the  doubt  will  stick  still,  if  folks  will  thus  break  in 
upon  God's  secret  will  and  purpose,  which  belongs  not 


CORECCLESIAE  95 

to  them.  Christ's  death  for  you  is  not  the  formal 
ground  nor  warrant  of  your  faith,  nor  yet  of  the  offer 
of  the  Gospel,  but  the  Lord's  will  warranting  you  to 
believe,  and  calling  for  it  from  you,  and  His  command- 
ing you  to  rest  upon  Christ  for  the  attaining  of  right- 
eousness, as  he  is  offered  in  the  Gospel.  We  are  in- 
vited by  His  command  and  promise,  and  we  are  not 
first  called  to  believe  that  Christ  died  for  us,  but  we 
are  first  called  to  believe  in  Him  that  is  offered  to  lis 
in  the  Gospel — that  is  our  duty.  And  men  are  not  con- 
demned because  Christ  died  not  for  them,  but  because, 
when  He  offered  the  benefit  of  His  death  and  suffer- 
ings to  them,  they  slighted  and  rejected  it.  We  are  to 
look  first  to  what  Christ  calleth  to,  and  not  to  meddle 
with  the  other,  to-wit,  whom  Christ  minded  in  His 
death,  till  we  have  done  the  first.  The  Word  bids  all 
believe  that  they  may  be  saved,  and  such  as  neglect 
this  command  will  be  found  disobedient.  Though 
Christ  hath  not  died  for  all,  yet  all  that  flee  unto  Him 
by  faith  shall  be  partakers  of  His  death,  and  from  this 
ye  should  reas,on,  and  not  from  His  intention  in  dying. 
If  ye  come  not  to  Him,  ye  cannot  have  ground  to  think 
He  died  for  you,  but  if  ye  go  to  Him  by  faith,  ye  may 
expect  that  He  will  pray  for  you,  and  own  you  for  be- 
lievers," p.  22.  On  p.  32,  Rev.  Durham  says,  "If 
Christ  died  only  for  the  elect,  all  should  be  more  dili- 
gent, and  each  should  aim  in  God's  way  to  have  it 
made  sure  to  himself  that  Christ  died  for  him,  and 
should  be  more  watchful  and  diligent  to  make  his  call- 
ing and  election  sure.  Redemption  is  sure  in  itself,  and 
free  grace  reigns  conspicuously  in  it,  yet  wisdom  and 
sovereignty  do  appear  in  this,  that  it  is  not  of  all; 
therefore  study  ye  to  make  it  sure  by  fleeing  to  Christ 
by  faith,  and  by  the  study  of  holiness  and  mortification 
in  His  strength,  and  through  the  power  of  His  death, 
which  will  be  proof  of  your  interest  in  it."  **It  be- 
comes you  not  to  dispute  with  God  [about  election, 
etc.],  but  to  seek  with  more  solicitude,  and  with  holy 
and  humble  carefulness  to  make  the  matter  sure  to 
yourselves ;  we  may  well  raise  storms  by  our  disputes. 


96  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

but  shall  come  to  no  peace  by  them;  this  can  only  be 
come  at  by  fleeing  to  the  hope  set  before  us." 

The  argument  is,  that  if  all  are  not  saved,  be  sure 
to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure,  by  fleeing  to 
Christ  as  offered  in  the  Gospel.  The  keyword  is  "be- 
lieve," and  this  faith  is  obtained  from  God  through 
hearing  the  Gospel ;  therefore  use  the  means  of  grace, 
and  in  due  time  God  by  His  Spirit  will  draw,  and  make 
it  plain.  If  elected,  you  were  elected  not  because  you 
are,  or  think  you  are  going  to  be,  holy,  but  in  order  to 
be  holy.  In  due  time  the  Lord  will  even  give  the  evi- 
dence of  your  election. 

It  is  rather  noteworthy  that  the  Reformed  Church 
in  1857  should  publish  such  thoroughly  Reformed  doc- 
trine; and  this  in  the  year  of  the  secession  in  Michi- 
gan, and  after  Fraeligh  and  those  consorting  with  him 
had  ex-communicated  her  in  1822  as  a  false  church; 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  in  the  year  1856,  just  before 
the  western  secession,  the  famous  "Rejection  of  Er- 
rors" should  be  re-published  by  the  Eastern  Reformed 
Church,  and  that  the  professors  in  the  Theological 
School  at  Kampen,  Netherlands,  say  in  the  preface  of 
their  edition  of  the  Five  Points  (Canons  of  Dort,  with 
the  Rejection  of  Errors),  in  October,  1856,  that  the 
edition  was  "published  at  the  request  of  the  Classis  of 
the  Holland  Reformed  Churches  in  North  America." 
This  little  book  was  widely  distributed  in  the  Michi- 
gan settlements  in  1856-7. 

Recurring  to  the  question  of  Predestination  as  un- 
derstood in  Reformed  Churches,  Prof.  Jas.  S.  Cannon, 
of  the  New  Brunswick  Seminary,  in  lecturing  to  his 
students  on  Pastoral  Theology,  Lectures,  p.  267,  said, 
"We  must  not  prophesy  smooth  things,  to  please  our 
friends,  nor  to  sell  the  truth  for  the  price  of  the  favor 
of  those  who  either  rule  in  the  world  of  fashion  or 
hold  the  purse-strings  of  the  congregation."  And  on 
page  266  of  these  lectures,  the  professor  added,  "To 
preach  the  word  in  wisdom;  that  is  to  say,  with  that 
regard  to  persons  and  circumstances  which  promise 
more  success  in  the  work.    There  are  elementary  truths 


CORECCLESIAE  97 

in  religion,  'first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ/ 
In  the  Scriptures  there  is  'milk  for  babes'  and  'strong 
meat'  for  those  more  advanced  in  Christian  knowledge 
and  experience.  There  are  truths  which  the  human 
mind  readily  perceives;  and  there  are  truths,  the  evi- 
dence of  which  cannot  be  seen  until  men  have  searched 
the  Scriptures,  until  they  are  awakened  and  endowed 
with  new  principles  and  taste.  These  facts  the  minis- 
ter must  keep  in  view.  He  must  not  preach  without 
discrimination  as  to  times,  any  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Word.  He  must  not  ring  the  changes  upon  the  doc- 
trines of  Divine  Sovereignty,  Predestination,  and  Elec- 
tion wherever  he  goes.  The  Apostles,  though  armed 
with  miraculous  powers,  did  not  do  this;  they  were 
stewards,  but  wise  stewards.  Strong  meat  they  with- 
held from  those  who  were  weak,  for  they  knew  that 
sincere  penitence  in  a  sinner's  soul  would  open  his 
eyes  upon  the  truth  of  those  doctrines  which  the  hard- 
ened in  heart  would  be  disposed  to  reject.  Hence  they 
went  forth  preaching  repentance  and  the  cross  of 
Christ,  as  the  medium  of  reconciliation.  Their  ex- 
ample we  must  imitate.  We  must  not  drop  from  our 
preaching  any  article  of  Christian  faith,  but  we  must 
present  truths  in  their  order,  and  on  those  occasions, 
after  those  precious  instructions  of  the  Apostles,  which 
shall  recommend  what  we  preach  to  the  serious  atten- 
tion and  consideration  of  those  who  hear  us." 

That  v/as  good  Reformed  doctrine  at  Dort  and  in 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  should  have  been 
such  at  Schraalenburgh  and  Hackensack  in  1822,  and 
in  Michigan  in  1857. 

John  Milton  was  not  a  heretic,  but  he  said  "man 
was  created  perfect,  though  free  to  fall."  This,  with 
the  doctrine  of  predestination,  places  us  before  one  of 
the  thousands  of  riddles  of  the  universe.  If  man  was 
free  to  fall,  and  yet  was  predestined  to  be  saved  or 
lost,  how  was  he  free?  If  man  was  predestined  from 
all  eternity,  he  v/as,  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  predes- 
tinated from  all  eternity,  even  though  "from  all  eter- 
nity" is  with  the  Almighty  an  everlasting  present.    It 


98  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

is  evident  that  Paul  caught  what  he  said  about  predes- 
tination from  the  vocabulary  of  the  Almighty.  He 
saw  and  heard  things,  he  tells  us,  he  could  not  utter  in 
human  language.  These  things  were  heard  and  seen 
on  the  plane  of  the  Almighty,  who  is  not  bound  by  time 
and  space.  But  to  man,  who  exists  in  the  finite  human 
plane  or  sphere,  the  mystery  is  incomprehensible.  Paul, 
especially,  gave  us  to  understand  that  the  mystery  was 
so  profound  as  to  be  untranslatable  into  earthly  lan- 
guage. And  this  brings  us  to  the  question  why  Paul 
spoke  at  all  about  such  a  tremendous  problem.  Why 
did  he  say,  "For  whom  He  did  foreknow.  He  also  did 
predestinate,  and  whom  He  did  predestinate,  them  He 
also  called;  and  whom  He  called,  them  He  also  justi- 
fied; and  whom  He  justified,  them  He  also  glorified?" 
Paul  and  other  Bible  writers  spoke  about  this  because 
it  was  revealed  to  them  as  the  golden  chain  that  binds 
the  soul  to  God — a  chain  that  cannot  be  broken. 

It  was  necessary  to  reveal  the  absolute  sovereignty 
of  God  and  the  free  grace  of  God  which  rescues  sinners 
from  their  utter  depravity  and  inability.  And  what  a 
chain  it  is;  foreknowledge,  election,  calling,  justifica- 
tion, and  glorification.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  sol- 
diers of  Prince  Maurice  and  of  Cromwell,  and  the  fight- 
ing saints  who  fought  the  Eighty  Years  War,  who  felt 
this  golden  chain  so  strongly,  were  invincible. 

The  "doctrines  of  grace,"  so-called  in  all  Reformed 
Churches,  including  election,  must  be  preached  as  part 
of  revelation  given  for  a  purpose.  These  doctrines 
make  the  sinner  seek  salvation.  They  make  him  truly 
humble  in  his  utter  weakness  and  worthlessness  before 
the  Lord.  They  show  the  reign  of  free  grace  in  the 
plan  of  salvation, — that  the  source  of  salvation  is  not 
in  self,  but  in  God.  And  rightly  understood,  these  doc- 
trines are  exceedingly  conducive  to  good  works  and 
holiness.  But  if  they  are  lost  sight  of,  and  ignored,  a 
finite  human  reason  would  be  enthroned,  utterly  unable 
to  understand  the  universe,  —  in  a  domain  it  cannot 
comprehend,  and  as  Coles  observed,  "without  a  divine 
compass  and  an  anchor  within  the  veil." 


CORECCLESIAE  99 

These  doctrines  of  grace  make  each  human  soul 
"direct-connected"  with  God,  and  each  human  sinner 
therefore  is  solely  responsible  to  Go9,  and  is  the  direct 
concern  of  God.  And  hence,  the  domination  and  dic- 
tation by  priests,  and  councils,  and  consistories,  and 
Church  Rules,  as  controlling  forces,  are  entirely 
knocked  out,  and  forever,  in  Reformed  Churches.  Each 
Calvinistic  believer  is  largely  his  own  prophet,  priest 
and  king,  so  that  the  principles  of  democracy  in  church 
and  state  root  in  these  same  doctrines  of  grace  and 
sovereignty  of  God;  and  closely  connected  with  them 
are  the  so-called  Christian  Liberties  (about  which  Cal- 
vin wrote  a  whole  chapter),  and  also  the  idea  of  the 
autonomy  of  the  local  churches,  which  is  such  a  dis- 
tinguishing feature  of  Calvinism. 

The  Scripture  give  us  simply  glimpses  of  the  affairs 
of  heaven  and  the  hereafter,  and  in  this  narrow  vale 
between  the  peaks  of  two  eternities,  they  give  us,  as  it 
were,  merely  a  sight  of  the  glorious  morning-red  of 
heaven.  It  is  enough  for  us  that  great  things  are  at 
hand,  but  we  cannot  pry  into  the  secret  things  of  God. 
In  this  dark  and  gloomy  world,  the  Scriptures  tell  us 
a  great  deal  about  our  duties,  for  we  have  the  more 
sure  word  of  prophecy ;  whereunto  we  do  well  that  we 
take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place, 
until  the  day  dawn,  and  the  daystar  arise  in  our  hearts. 

We  may  insist  upon  predestination  and  allied  doc- 
trines too  persistently.  They  then  become  like  "potent 
medicines,  which  injudiciously  administered,  kill  in- 
stead of  cure."  There  is  "milk  for  babes,"  as  well  as 
"strong  meat"  for  men.  In  presenting  the  gospel  mes- 
sage to  the  uninitiated,  we  do  well  to  place  a  light  on  a 
stand  at  the  window,  so  that  it  can  illumine  the  path- 
way upward;  but  on  that  stand  we  must  place  Ed- 
wards' "Sinners  in  the  Hands  of  an  Angry  God"  and 
Coles'  "God's  Sovereignty,"  and  upon  these  the  New 
Testament,  open  at  the  fifteenth  of  Luke. 

But  withal,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  as  a  result 
of  the  sovereign  act  of  God,  election  is  the  root  of  the 
whole  matter.    "Faith  and  holiness  are  not  the  foun- 


100  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

dation  or  top-stone  of  election,"  but  are  as  "stalks  and 
branches"  to  that  root,  election ;  and,  as  Coles  remarks, 
"Good  works  are  a  part  of  election,  and  the  elect  are  as 
absolutely  ordained  to  them  as  to  salvation  itself.  John 
XV,  16." 

The  mere  belief  and  advocacy  of  the  dogma  of  pre- 
destination amount  to  little  in  themselves.  The  Scrip- 
tures plainly  intimate  that  all  will  not  be  saved,  that 
all  in  themselves  deserve  to  be  lost,  and  that  if  some 
are  saved — elected — it  is  only  by  the  special  grace  of 
God.  The  real  point  involved  is  whether  there  is  pres- 
ent faith  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  a  substitute 
for  our  own  unrighteousness.  We  must  look  for  faith, 
— the  gift  of  God, — and  for  what  follows  in  its  train, — 
the  signs,  the  evidences,  of  our  own  election.  Not  elec- 
tion as  a  doctrine  so  much,  but  the  evidences  of  elec- 
tion, must  be  our  chief  concern. 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  101 


Vil.    THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD 


THE  Church  of  Christ  consists  of  true  believers 
of  all  ages,  past,  present,  and  to  come.  The  church 
is  the  body  of  Christ,  with  Christ  as  Head.  There 
is,  therefore,  only  one  true  church  in  all  the  ages.  This 
church  is  called  the  Holy  Universal  Church,  or  the  Holy 
Catholic  (General)  Church,  as  in  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
As  the  dead  and  living  saints  are  members  of  this 
Church,  and  as  the  exercise  of  faith  and  other  religious 
functions  are  partly  visible  and  invisible,  this  Church 
General  is  considered  in  two  aspects, — the  visible  and 
invisible  church,  even  as  a  man  with  body  and  soul,  is 
partly  visible  and  invisible,  yet  one  man.  The  invisible 
church  is  always  the  real  essence  of  the  visible  church, 
and  usually  becomes  visible  only  piecemeal,  that  is 
locally,  over  the  earth.  The  local  church  is  not  the 
Church  of  Christ,  but  is  only  a  manifestation  of  the 
Church  Universal,  independent  in  the  first  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era,  and  independent  still,  as  a  complete 
local  manifestation  of  the  Holy  General  Church,  but 
under  the  duty  of  uniting  with  other  local  churches  as 
much  as  possible,  in  order  to  accentuate  and  approach 
the  unity  of  the  Church  Universal,  with  the  obligation 
also,  however,  not  to  sell  herself  into  slavery  to  any 
classis  or  synod  or  hierarchy.  In  fact,  if  a  local  church 
binds  herself  to  any  larger  body,  that  larger  body  must 
adhere  to  the  rule  of  the  Scriptures,  or  there  may  be 
no  union  as  part  of  Christ's  Church,  but  only  a  mere 
human  annexation. 

The  Scriptures  are  the  rule  by  which  churches  are 
known  and  judged.  God,  through  the  Scriptures,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  gathers  the  elect,  and  by  the  preaching 
of  the  Word  keeps  them  under  the  discipline  of  the 


102  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Bible.  The  invisible  church  is  really  the  organism 
which  unites  by  the  Spirit  the  elect  under  Christ  as 
head.  If  there  is  a  circle  of  elect  believers  in  a  local 
church  having  communion  of  saints,  no  matter  how 
weak  their  services  are,  they  are  a  church — not  a  mere 
human  club. 

The  visible  church  is  the  church  as  she  appears  on 
earth,  in  her  services,  works,  outward  worship,  etc. 
As  such  she  appears  locally,  both  singly  and  as  united 
with  other  local  churches,  and  is,  of  course,  subject  to 
imperfections  and  deformation  and  reformation,  with 
the  duty  to  adhere  to  the  Scriptures  as  her  only  rule 
of  faith  and  life.  How  far  the  so-called  visible  church 
is  a  part  of  the  real  church  depends  upon  the  election 
of  God.  If  elected  and  brought  by  the  Spirit,  through 
the  ministry  of  the  Word,  from  darkness  into  light,  a 
believer  is  a  member  of  the  great  Invisible  Church; 
but  membership  in  the  visible  church  is  procured  by 
the  action  of  man,  with  the  result  that  many  unbeliev- 
ers, called  by  the  Reformed  Confession  "hypocrites," 
find  their  way  into  the  Church  on  earth.  On  account 
of  human  inability  to  read  the  heart,  the  rule  in  admit- 
ting members  to  the  church  necessarily  is  limited  to  a 
good  confession  and  an  exemplary  life;  but  whether  a 
member  merely  assumes  these  qualities,  and  makes  a 
good  confession  and  outwardly  leads  a  holy  life,  only 
in  appearance,  without  genuineness,  is  known  to  him- 
self and  God  alone.  Hence,  while  the  real  visible 
church  is  always  a  part  of  the  invisible  church,  this 
visible  church,  on  account  of  human  limitations,  has 
many  members  on  her  rolls  who  are  not  enrolled  in 
the  Book  of  Life. 

That  the  reader  may  know  more  about  this  mat- 
ter, something  of  what  Calvin  and  Brakel  say  on  the 
subject  is  here  subjoined,  for  further  information: 

Brakel,  a  celebrated  Dutch  divine,  who  about  two 
centuries  ago  wrote  the  excellent  work  entitled  Rea- 
sonable Religion,  objects  to  dividing  the  church  into 
visible  and  invisible.  Man,  he  says,  is  visible  in  body, 
but  invisible  in  mind  and  soul ;  visible  believers  are  not 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  103 

in  two  kinds  of  churches.  We  speak  of  a  church  con- 
sisting of  true  believers;  this  church  fights  for  the 
faith,  is  sometimes  more  visible  than  at  other  times, 
and  in  regard  to  her  internal  spiritual  state  (gestalte) 
is  invisible,  but  visible  in  her  meetings  and  persons. 
It  is  one  thing  to  join  the  church,  and  another  to  be  a 
real  member ;  the  one  does  not  always  follow  the  other ; 
members  are  accepted  by  men,  who  know  only  what  is 
visible,  but  cannot  judge  the  heart;  God  judges  the 
heart ;  the  new  birth,  or  its  probability,  is  not  set  up  as 
a  rule  in  accepting  members,  but  the  confession  of 
truth,  and  a  life  in  accordance  with  the  confession,  is 
the  rule ;  the  rest  is  left  to  themselves  and  to  God.  In 
the  church,  or  of  the  church,  are  different  matters.  We 
cannot  know  the  church  from  the  rebirth  of  her  mem- 
bers, but  from  true  doctrine  and  the  holiness  of  her 
members  together.  These  two  can  be  known,  and 
where  they  are,  humanly  speaking,  there  is  the  true 
church.  Whether  a  member  has  these  two  truly,  or  in 
appearance  (schijn)  only,  is  a  matter  between  himself 
and  God.  Regeneration,  or  the  new  birth  of  members, 
is  not  a  mark  of  the  true  church  for  the  guidance  of 
others."— Brakel,  Vol.  1,  pp.  548-55. 

The  reference  in  the  following  is  to  Allen's  trans- 
lation of  Calvin's  noted  commentary  on  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  known  as  "Institutes  of  the  Christian  Re- 
ligion." 

Chapter  1,  Book  IV,  of  Calvin's  Institutes,  is  on 
"The  True  Church  and  the  Necessity  of  our  Union 
with  Her,  being  the  Mother  of  all  the  Pious."  Calvin 
says  that  our  ignorance  and  slothfulness,  and  vanity 
of  mind,  require  external  aids  in  order  to  the  produc- 
tion of  faith  in  our  hearts,  and  its  increase  and  pro- 
gressive advance  to  its  completion,  and  that  God  has 
provided  such  aids  in  compassion  to  our  infirmity — the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  by  the  Church.  "The  word 
'Church'  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  refers  not  only  to  the 
visible  church,  but  likewise  to  all  the  elect  of  God,  in- 
cluding the  dead  as  well  as  the  living.  Unless  we  are 
united  with  all  other  members  under  Christ  our  Head, 


104  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

we  can  have  no  hope  of  the  future  inheritance.  There- . 
fore  the  Church  is  called  Catholic  or  Universal;  be- 
cause there  could  not  be  two  or  three  churches,  with- 
out Christ  being  divided,  which  is  impossible.  But  all 
the  elect  of  God  are  so  connected  with  each  other  in 
Christ,  that  they  depend  upon  one  head,  and  thus  they 
grow  up  together  as  into  one  body,  being  made  truly 
one,  as  living  by  one  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  through 
the  Spirit,  to  the  same  inheritance  in  one  God  and 
Christ.  The  article  of  the  Creed  relates,  however,  in 
some  measure  to  the  external  church,  so  that  every 
one  may  maintain  a  brotherly  agreement  with  all  the 
children  of  God,  and  pay  deference  to  the  authority  of 
the  Church,  and  conduct  himself  as  one  of  the  ilock. 
Therefore  we  add  'Communion  of  Saints,'  as  though 
it  had  been  said  that  the  saints  are  united  in  fellowship 
of  Christ  on  this  condition,  that  whatever  benefits  God 
confers  they  should  mutually  communicate  to  each 
other,"  p.  223.  Calvin  further  says,  "We  are  not  called 
to  distinguish  in  the  church  the  reprobates  from  the 
elect,  which  is  not  our  province,  but  must  be  assured 
in  our  minds  that  we  are  partakers  of  God's  grace," 
p.  224.  "Christ,  'that  he  might  fill  all  things,  gave 
some  apostles,  some  prophets,  and  some  evangelists, 
and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints  until  the  measure  of  the  fullness  of  Christ.' 
God  could  easily  make  His  people  perfect  in  a  single 
moment,  yet  it  was  His  will  that  they  should  grow 
under  the  education  of  the  Church.  Hence  it  follows, 
that  all  who  reject  the  spiritual  food  of  their  souls, 
extended  by  the  Church,  deserve  to  perish  with  hunger 
and  thirst."  "It  is  God  who  inspires  us  with  faith,  but 
it  is  through  the  Gospel,  as  Paul  says  that  'faith  cometh 
by  hearing.'  So  also  the  power  to  save  resides  in  God, 
but,  as  Paul  says  in  another  place,  he  displays  it  in  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,"  p.  225.  God  confines  us  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  as  Paul  says,  the 
Church  can  be  edified  only  by  the  preaching  of  the 
word,  and  the  saints  have  no  common  bond  except  while 
learning  and  profiting  by  the  order  which  God  has  pre- 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  105 

scribed  for  His  Church;  for  nothing  is  more  valued 
by  believers  than  this  assistance,  by  which  God  grad- 
ually raises  His  people  from  one  degree  of  salvation  to 
another,  p.  227. 

Next  Calvin  refers  to  the  two  scripture  senses  of 
the  church.  1.  All  believers  of  all  time,  and,  2,  "the 
whole  multitude  dispersed  over  the  world,  who  profess 
to  worship  one  God  and  Christ,  who  are  initiated  into 
his  faith  by  baptism,  and  who  testify  their  unity  in 
true  doctrine  and  charity  by  a  participation  of  the 
sacred  supper,  who  consent  to  the  Word  of  the  Lord, 
and  preserve  the  ministry  Christ  instituted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preaching  it.  In  this  Church  are  included  many 
hypocrites,  who  have  nothing  of  Christ  but  the  name 
and  appearance;  many  persons  ambitious,  avaricious, 
envious,  slanderous,  and  dissolute  in  their  lives,  who 
are  tolerated  for  a  time,  either  because  they  cannot  be 
convicted  by  a  legitimate  process,  or  because  discipline 
is  not  always  maintained  with  sufficient  vigor.  As  it 
is  necessary  to  believe  in  that  Church,  which  is  invisi- 
ble to  us,  and  known  to  God  alone,  so  this  Church, 
which  is  visible  to  men,  we  are  commanded  to  honor, 
and  to  maintain  communion  with  it,"  p.  230. 

Calvin  then  says  that  the  Lord  has  given  this  visi- 
ble Church  certain  marks  and  characters.  He  quotes 
Augustine  as  saying,  "According  to  the  secret  predes- 
tination of  God,  there  are  many  sheep  without  the  pale 
of  the  Church,  and  many  wolves  within."  He  seals 
the  elect,  and  we  cannot  tell  who  they  are ;  but  has  ac- 
commodated Himself  to  our  capacity  by  setting  certain 
marks  by  which  to  find  who  ought  to  be  considered  His 
children.  "And  as  it  was  not  necessary  that  on  that 
point  we  should  have  an  assurance  of  faith,  he  has  sub- 
stituted in  its  place  a  judgment  of  charity,  according 
to  which  we  ought  to  acknowledge  as  members  of  the 
Church  all  those  who  by  a  confession  of  faith,  and  ex- 
emplary life,  and  a  participation  of  the  sacraments, 
profess  the  same  God  and  Christ  with  ourselves." 

"But  a  knowledge  of  the  body  itself  being  more 
necessary  to  our  salvation.  He  has  distinguished  it  by 


106  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

more  clear  and  certain  characters.  Hence  the  visible 
Church  rises  conspicuously  to  our  view.  For  wherever 
we  find  the  word  of  God  purely  preached  and  heard, 
and  the  sacraments  administered  according  to  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ,  there,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted,  is  a 
Church  of  God;  for  His  promise  can  never  deceive — 
'where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name, 
there  I  am  in  the  midst  of  them'." 

"But,  that  we  may  have  a  clear  understanding  of 
the  whole  of  this  subject,  let  us  proceed  by  the  follow- 
ing steps:  That  the  Universal  Church  is  the  whole 
multitude,  collected  from  all  nations,  who  though  dis- 
persed in  countries  widely  distant,  nevertheless  con- 
sent to  the  same  truth  of  Divine  doctrine,  and  are 
united  by  the  same  bond  of  religion;  that  in  this  Uni- 
versal Church  are  comprehended  particular  churches, 
distributed  according  to  human  necessity  in  various 
towns  and  villages;  that  each  of  these  respectively  is 
justly  distinguished  by  the  name  and  authority  of  a 
church;  and  that  individuals,  who,  on  a  profession  of 
piety  are  enrolled  among  churches  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion, though  they  are  really  strangers  to  any  particular 
church,  do,  nevertheless,  in  some  respect  belong  to  it, 
till  they  are  expelled  from  it  by  a  public  decision." 

"There  is  some  difference,  however,  in  the  mode  of 
judging  respecting  private  persons  and  churches.  For 
it  may  happen,  in  the  case  of  persons  whom  we  think 
altogether  unworthy  of  the  society  of  the  pious,  that, 
on  account  of  the  common  consent  of  the  Church,  by 
which  they  are  tolerated  in  the  body  of  Christ,  we  may 
be  obliged  to  treat  them  as  brethren,  and  to  class  them 
in  the  number  of  believers.  In  our  private  judgment 
we  do  not  approve  of  such  persons  as  members  of  the 
Church,  but  we  leave  them  the  station  they  hold  among 
the  people  of  God,  till  it  be  taken  away  from  them  by 
legitimate  authority." 

"But  respecting  the  congregation  itself,  we  must 
form  a  different  judgment.  If  they  possess  and  honor 
the  ministry  of  the  word  and  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  they  are,  without  all  doubt,  entitled 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  107 

to  be  considered  as  a  church,  because  it  is  certain  that 
the  Word  and  sacraments  cannot  be  unattended  with 
some  good  effects.  In  this  manner,  we  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  Universal  Church,  without  interfering 
with  the  authority  of  those  legitimate  assemblies  which 
local  convenience  has  distributed  in  different  places," 
p.  231. 

In  the  above,  Calvin  has  the  one  Universal  church  in 
mind  distributed  as  local  churches  in  towns  and  vil- 
lages, as  human  necessity  dictated.  It  is  clear  that  in 
the  visible  church  are  many  hypocrites,  but  it  is  never- 
theless true,  that  in  order  to  become  members  of  the 
real  church,  we  must  join  the  visible  church,  unless 
for  good  cause  this  is  impossible.  Calvin  admits  the 
condition  of  admission  to  membership  in  the  visible 
church  is  confession  of  faith,  an  exemplary  life,  and 
participation  of  the  sacraments  only,  while  as  to  mem- 
bership in  the  real  church  God  is  the  Judge.  All  in 
the  real  converted  church  are  members,  while  in  the 
visible  church  on  earth,  there  are  many  who  are  mem- 
bers only  in  appearance,  but  cannot  be  convicted  on 
account  of  human  inability  to  judge  infallibly;  hence 
the  rule  of  charity  in  the  church  is  to  judge  as  far  as 
possible,  namely,  by  outward  acts  instead  of  by  judg- 
ing the  heart. 

The  Church  of  Christ  is  one  then,  and  so  far  as  this 
one  church  manifests  herself  on  earth,  she  does  it 
whenever  there  is  a  genuine  local  church.  Calvin  does 
not  know  of  such  organizations  as  classis  or  synod,  nor 
do  the  Reformed  Churches  recognize  such  organiza- 
tions, except  as  the  result  of  the  combined  efforts  of 
several  different  local  churches  for  common  purposes. 

When  Calvin  says  that  "wherever  we  find  the  Word 
of  God  purely  preached  and  heard,  and  the  sacraments 
administered  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ, 
there,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted,  is  a  Church  of  God,"  he 
means,  not  Romanists,  Reformed,  or  Methodist,  but 
all  those  who  "by  confession  of  faith,  an  exemplary 
life,  and  participation  of  the  sacraments,  confess  the 
same  God  and  Christ  with  ourselves,"  no  matter  where 


108  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

or  in  what  denomination.  Whatever  we  may  think  of 
others,  the  rule  of  charity  above  referred  to,  applies, 
while  God  will  do  the  judging  in  the  end  infallibly. 
This  requires  us  to  be  careful  in  passing  judgment  on 
others,  and  other  denominations.  The  rule  of  charity 
limits  us  to  a  good  confession  and  a  holy  walk  as  cri- 
teria of  church  membership,  and  St.  Paul  was  not 
rambling  when  he  said,  Phil.  3:15,  16,  "and  if  in  any- 
thing ye  be  otherwise  minded,  God  shall  reveal  even 
this  to  you.  Nevertheless,  whereto  ye  have  already 
attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let  us  mind  the 
same  thing" ;  which  means  that  in  spite  of  certain  dif- 
ferences, we  must  walk  by  the  same  rule,  and  mind  the 
same  thing,  that  is,  the  essentials.  In  minding  essen- 
tials, and  not  non-essentials,  the  Synod  of  Dort  recog- 
nized baptism  by  Roman  Catholics,  and  Calvin,  al- 
though condemning  the  government  of  the  Romish 
Church  and  her  mass,  did  not  deny  that  there  were  real 
churches  in  the  Romish  church  where  the  Spirit  of  God 
wrought.  If  the  real  church  is  the  body  of  Christ,  and 
this  body  is  manifest  locally  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  it  is 
wrong  for  any  one  to  condemn  such  a  local  church,  if 
there  are  defects  in  the  preaching,  the  sacraments,  or 
discipline.  All  are  not  agreed  even  as  to  what  are 
fundamental  doctrines;  Methodists,  e.  g.,  also  claim 
they  have  the  pure  preaching  of  the  Word,  and  they 
deduce  their  standards  from  the  same  Word  as  others 
do.  But  the  grand  doctrine  of  remission  of  sins 
through  Christ  is  a  fundamental  principle  also  recog- 
nized by  them ;  and  from  this  we  should  reason,  leav- 
ing it  to  God  to  judge  infallibly. 

The  secession  "from  all  Protestant  denomina- 
tions," as  featured  by  the  Seceders  in  Michigan 
in  1857,  is  therefore  probably  one  of  the  most 
high-handed  repudiations  of  the  divinity  and  unity 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  on  record.  These  Seced- 
ers really  excommunicated  the  strongest,  most  scrip- 
tural churches  in  America,  and  in  their  place  set 
up  a  separate  organization  which  recognized  no  other 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  109 

church  on  earth  to  be  genuine  except  a  few  in  the 
Netherlands,  in  defiance  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Chris- 
tian sense  as  developed  by  the  Church  during  eighteen 
centuries,  as  shown  by  Calvin  and  the  Reformed  Sy- 
nods. That  secession  in  1857  from  the  Reformed 
Church  and  all  other  Protestant  denominations,  showed 
such  a  disregard  of  the  real  spiritual  essence  of  church 
unity,  and  such  an  insistence  upon  non-essentials  such 
as  mere  church  rules,  that  the  question  arises  whether 
those  Seceders  of  1857  were  not  in  danger  of  actually 
setting  up  a  false  church;  for  while  the  Reformed 
Church  believed  in  judging  Church  Rules  by  the  Forms 
of  Concord,  and  the  latter  by  the  Bible,  those  Seceders 
elevated  Rules  into  Forms  of  Concord,  and  then  de- 
manded unconditional  acceptance  of  them,  thus  ascrib- 
ing more  authority  to  their  own  ordinances  than  to  the 
Bible.  They  also  refused  to  submit  to  the  yoke  of 
Christ,  when  they  refused  to  submit  to  the  form  read 
before  communion  putting  it  up  to  each  one  whether 
he  eats  or  drinks  judgment  to  himself,  but  added  to 
and  took  from  the  sacraments  as  suited  themselves. 
They  did  worse:  they  disowned,  repudiated,  seceded 
from,  excommunicated,  other  Protestant  churches,  and 
so  persecuted  many  of  those  who  walked  in  the  fear  of 
God.  It  is  no  wonder  that,  since  1857,  those  Seceders 
have  been  obliged  largely  to  recede  from  their  posi- 
tion, for  it  was  partly  anti-Christian  and  totally  un- 
Reformed. 

In  this  and  other  chapters  of  a  similar  nature  in 
this  series  of  papers,  the  writer  is  not  unmindful  of 
the  fact  that  a  strong,  though  heterodox,  distinction 
was  made  by  the  western  Seceders  some  years  ago,  be- 
tween the  Church  Universal  on  the  one  hand,  and  a 
church  denomination  on  the  other.  These  Seceders 
claimed  the  right  to  separate  themselves,  in  certain 
cases,  from  a  denomination  in  order  to  remain  in  the 
Church  Universal;  that  is,  they  left  the  false  church 
in  order  to  remain  in  the  General  Church,  the  true 
Church.  This  procedure  is  incontestibly  right,  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures,  when  applied  to  a  denomination, 


110  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

whenever  the  latter,  like  a  false  church,  permits,  fos- 
ters, and  extends  overwhelming  fundamental  errors 
touching  the  question  of  salvation,  but  is  wrong  when 
applied  in  all  other  cases.  And  while  the  existence  of 
so  many  denominations  is  not  an  encouraging  sign,  yet, 
in  view  of  the  terrible  weaknesses  of  humanity,  the 
fact  that  so  many  children  of  God  have  succeeded  in 
uniting  so  many  autonomous  local  churches  into  de- 
nominations, of  which  several  are  very  large,  is  indeed 
a  very  encouraging  sign.  These  denominations  are 
the  result  of  the  innate  desire  of  the  Christian  heart 
for  unity,  and  they  are  therefore  a  great  approach  to 
the  unity  of  the  Universal  Church.  And  if  so,  these 
denominations,  unless  there  are  valid  Scriptural  rea- 
sons to  the  contrary,  are  sacred  as  against  those  who, 
instead  of  increasing  the  desired  unity,  reverse  the 
process,  and,  by  seceding,  increase  the  disunion. 

If  denominations  are  the  result  of  the  yearnings  for 
Christian  unity,  he  who  secedes  from  a  denomination 
on  points  of  mere  Church  Rules  not  touching  essentials, 
and  on  matters  of  emphasizing  more  or  less  certain 
doctrines,  and  meanwhile  claims  that  he  remains  in 
the  old  denomination  and  is  entitled  to  the  property 
of  the  denomination,  has  not  made  out  a  very  clear 
case  of  corruption  in  matters  affecting  salvation.  In 
the  State  Church  of  Holland  in  1834,  and  later,  great 
fundamental  errors  were  not  repressed,  and  the  ex- 
pulsion of  De  Cock,  Scholte,  and  others,  settled  the 
question  as  to  them  without  a  doubt.  But  when  some 
churches  in  a  denomination  remain  orthodox  and  oth- 
ers remain  heterodox,  the  rule  becomes  complicated, 
and  the  most  orthodox  minds  in  Holland  disagree  on 
it  to  this  day.  The  writer  does  not  here  pass  judg- 
ment on  the  subject,  because,  in  1857,  when  some  of 
the  Hollanders  in  Michigan  seceded,  there  was  not  a 
single  church  in  the  Reformed  Church,  East  or  West, 
that  did  not  preach  every  doctrine  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, and  there  was  not  a  single  rationalist  in  that 
Church ;  and,  what  is  more,  the  General  Synod  of  that 
Church  was  never  more  insistent  on  pure  doctrine 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  lU 

than  at  that  time,  when  she  showered  over  her 
churches,  among  the  hundreds  of  pamphlets,  even  the 
"Rejection  of  Errors"  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  It  is 
therefore  quite  plain  that  the  Seceders  of  1857  were  not 
in  fact  leaving  the  church  in  order  to  remain  in  the 
Church,  but  they  left  the  church  in  order  to  establish 
a  secession  church.  And  this  brings  us  back  to  the  dif- 
ference between  transferring  membership  from  one 
denomination  to  another  "without  contention,"  as  Cal- 
vin said,  and  the  attempt  to  break  up  a  church  and 
setting  up  a  rival  church  which  claims  to  be  the  Church 
as  against  the  one  seceded  from.  The  real  question  at 
issue  in  that  secession  of  1857,  is  whether  these  Seced- 
ers had  a  right  under  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice, 
to  start  a  rival  church  as  against  the  Reformed  Church, 
under  the  slogan  that  they  left  that  church  in  order 
to  remain  in  the  real  Church,  which  implied  that  the 
Reformed  Church  was  not  a  part  of  the  Church,  and 
was  therefore  a  false  church,  while  later  these  Seced- 
ers have  recognized  that  Reformed  Church  as  one  of 
the  sister  churches  in  the  great  Universal  Church.  A 
great  error  was  committed  by  the  Seceders  either  in 
1857,  or  later  when  they  reversed  their  decision. 


112  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


VIII.    THE  LOCAL   CHURCH 


IF  A  LOCAL  church  is  the  local  manifestation  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  such  a  local 
church  must  have  the  characteristics  of  the  Univer- 
sal Church.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  according  to  the 
Scriptures  the  organic  whole  of  the  Christian  Church 
is  the  invisible  church,  and  that  in  the  invisible  church 
the  local  visible  churches  are  component  parts,  while 
larger  bodies,  like  classes  and  synods,  are  what  may  be 
called  groups,  formed  by  several  local  churches  com- 
bining their  independent  and  separate  powers  freely 
for  common  objects.  The  local  churches  in  the  New 
Testament,  particularly  in  Revelation,  each  had  the 
complete  essence  of  a  church,  while  occasionally  men- 
tion is  made  in  the  Scriptures  of  those  extraordinary 
meetings,  as  in  Acts  XV.  Later,  councils  or  synods 
were  held,  but  in  each  case,  as  also  in  the  formation  of 
denominations,  these  outward  connections  or  bonds 
were  the  result  of  confederation  of  independent  auto- 
nomous local  churches. 

The  local  church  consists  of  a  body  of  believers,  us- 
ing the  means  of  grace,  and  even  if  such  church  is  iso- 
lated, her  character  is  complete.  If  she  is  a  manifesta- 
tion of  the  body  of  Christ,  her  character  as  a  real 
church  is  assured,  and  the  connection  in  which  she 
enters  with  other  visible  churches  does  not  necessarily 
destroy  her  essence.  The  apostles  never  speak  of  visi- 
ble churches  as  in  connection  with  other  visible 
churches,  and  Revelation  speaks  of  seven  churches,  and 
each  is  called  a  Church  of  God.  The  election  is  really 
the  basis  of  unity  with  the  body  of  Christ,  and  Christ 
being  over  all,  these  local  churches  must  combine,  for 
since  a  local  church  is  a  manifestation  of  the  Universal 


THE      CHURCH      OF      GOD  113 

Church  in  a  particular  locality,  she  must  see  to  it  that 
she  brings  out  locally  the  unity  of  this  Invisible  Church 
by  joining  with  other  local  churches,  on  the  basis  of 
unity  of  essential  doctrines. 

The  local  church  is  a  cell  of  the  general  church, 
and  not  of  a  national  or  synodical  church.  She  is  a 
member  of  the  invisible  church,  and  remains  so,  even  if 
all  other  churches  drop  out.  She  does  not  owe  her  ex- 
istence to  a  synod  or  council  or  national  or  territorial 
church,  but  synods  and  territorial  churches  exist  as  a 
result  and  because  of  local  churches.  She  is  a  church 
because  Christ  lives  and  works  in  her,  and  not  because 
some  synod  recognizes  her.  Denominations  consist  of 
autonomous  local  churches,  while  local  churches  con- 
sist of  members;  members  are  members  of  local 
churches  only,  while  local  churches  are  members  of 
the  denomination.  The  local  church  is  the  unit,  and 
under  the  Reformed  system,  her  consistory,  and  there- 
fore the  local  church  herself,  as  a  single  body,  alone 
enters  into  combination  with  other  local  churches.  An 
individual  church  member  can,  therefore,  merely  se- 
cede from  his  local  church,  while  the  local  church  only 
can  secede  from  a  denomination.  The  responsibility 
for  church  connection  with  other  churches  therefore 
rests  primarily  on  the  consistory,  or  government  of 
the  local  churches,  and  not  on  the  individual  member. 
What  happens  in  another  congregation  is  not,  there- 
fore, in  the  first  instance,  chargeable  to  a  private  mem- 
ber of  a  local  church,  but  to  the  consistory.  "Solidaire 
verantwoordelijkheid,"  as  known  among  Hollanders, 
"common  responsibility"  for  what  happens  in  other 
churches  of  a  denomination,  if  such  responsibility 
arises,  rests  directly  upon  the  consistory  and  indirectly 
on  private  members;  and  before  errors  in  other 
churches  can  justify  a  secession  by  an  individual  from 
his  local  church,  his  consistory  must  be  exceedingly 
negligent  in  combatting  such  errors.  If  his  consistory 
does  not  permit  his  local  church  to  fall  into  like  errors, 
but  maintains  his  church  on  Scriptural  basis,  the  con- 
nection of  his  church  with  a  denomination  in  which 


114  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

some  consistories  are  not  so  faithful  and  watchful,  does 
not  deprive  his  local  church  of  her  Christ-bought  mem- 
bership in  the  Church  of  God ;  and  if  the  connection  of 
his  church  does  not  necessarily  destroy  or  impair  seri- 
ously the  essence  of  his  local  church,  he  is  not  justified 
in  deserting  her  by  secession,  unless  he  is  forced  there- 
to. 

This  principle  of  limited  responsibility  for  other 
churches,  and  larger  responsibility  for  his  own  local 
church  was  not  understood  by  the  Hollanders  in  Amer- 
ica. And  yet  it  seems  to  be  the  Bible  rule;  and  even, 
in  Holland,  in  most  cases,  during  the  Reformation, 
people  did  not  secede  from  their  local  churches,  but 
the  local  churches  properly  broke  off  connection  with 
the  Romish  Church.  In  the  Holland  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, too,  there  were  many  excellent  orthodox  churches 
in  the  State  Church,  which  deplored  the  illegal  govern- 
ment of  that  church,  but  they  drew  a  line  between  the 
being  and  well-being  of  a  local  church  so  strongly  as  to 
submit  even  to  the  reception  of  rationalistic  members 
from  other  churches.  While  this  appears  a  very  ques- 
tionable policy,  it  is  admitted  by  the  Seceders  in  Hol- 
land that  many  of  these  orthodox  churches  in  the  State 
Church  are  true  churches  and  not  false  churches,  or 
synagogues  of  Satan,  because  they  preach  the  Word 
powerfully,  and  do  not  neglect  the  sacraments. 

Of  course,  if  an  organization  forces  a  local  church 
into  errors  in  fundamentals,  the  local  consistory  has  a 
right  to  break  with  such  organization ;  and  if  the  con- 
sistory submits  to  errors  in  fundamentals  locally,  the 
individual  member  has  a  right  to  demand  reform  or  to 
secede.  But  such  a  general  statement  means  little  in 
itself,  because  all  do  not  agree  as  to  what  are  errors  in 
fundamentals.  In  order  to  obtain  a  closer  view  of  the 
subject,  the  following  is  added,  with  recognition,  of 
what  the  learned  Dr.  Kuyper  has  written  on  this  sub- 
ject, in  his  work  on  Reformation  of  Churches,  pub- 
lished in  1884. 

On  p.  168  of  said  work,  Dr.  Kuyper  says,  "All  Re- 
formed theologians  hold  the  preaching  of  the  Word  as 


-»<?Si-i'(;    ■*$iKyi->»S%^!«*T*':SJ;S*KKS?*«;iS«^^^^^ 


DR.  A.  KUYPER  AT  80 


116  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

a  mark  of  the  true  church;  most  of  them  add  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  sacraments  as  the  second  mark ;  and 
a  few  of  them  add  discipline  as  a  third  mark.  The 
Synod  of  Dort  gave  these  three  marks,  and  added  the 
word  'pure'  to  each  one;  and  a  few  people  reading  of 
these  marks,  straightway  conclude  that  if  there  is  the 
least  weakness  in  one  of  these  marks  in  a  church,  she 
is  a  false  church,  and  they  secede  and  secede  again." 
Calvin  does  not  include  discipline  among  the  marks  of 
a  true  church,  and  the  Lutheran  Church  has  no  disci- 
pline as  Reformed  people  understand  the  term;  but 
none  deny  the  character  of  a  true  church  to  the 
Lutheran,  and  Calvin  is  considered  the  great  father  of 
Reformed  Churches.  In  1618-19  the  Synod  of  Dort  in 
order  to  emphasize  in  the  strongest  way  the  difference 
between  the  Reformed  churches,  on  one  hand,  and  the 
Romish  and  Anabaptists  churches  and  other  sects,  on 
the  other  hand,  set  up  the  three  marks  by  which  the 
true  church  certainly  may  be  known,  as  follows:  "If 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  preached  therein ;  if 
she  maintains  the  pure  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments as  instituted  by  Christ;  if  church  discipline  is 
exercised  in  punishing  sin — in  short,  if  all  things  are 
managed  according  to  the  pure  Word  of  God,  all  things 
contrary  thereto  rejected,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  acknowl- 
edged as  the  only  Head  of  the  Church.  Hence  the  true 
church  may  certainly  be  known;  from  which  no  man 
has  a  right  to  separate  himself," — Art.  XXIX  of  Con- 
fession. In  the  same  article  the  marks  of  members  of 
the  true  church  are:  faith;  and  when  they  have  re- 
ceived Christ  as  Savior,  to  avoid  sin,  follow  righteous- 
ness, and  love  God  and  neighbors,  etc.  This  avoidance 
of  sin  is  something  different  from  Antinomianism.  In 
Art.  29,  also,  the  Synod  of  Dort  describes  the  false 
church  in  positive  terms,  but  that  synod  does  not  say 
that  a  church  is  a  false  church  whenever  one  of  these 
three  marks  is  lacking  or  defective,  or  that  if  discipline 
is  not  rigidly  applied  in  a  church,  she  is  a  false  church. 
Nothing  of  the  kind ;  but  the  synod  said :  "As  for  the 
false  church,  she  ascribes  more  power  and  authority 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  117 

to  herself  and  her  ordinances,  than  to  the  Word  of  God, 
and  will  not  submit  herself  to  the  yoke  of  Christ. 
Neither  does  she  administer  the  sacraments  as  ap- 
pointed by  Christ  in  His  Word,  but  adds  to,  and  takes 
from  them,  as  she  thinks  proper ;  she  relieth  more  upon 
men  than  upon  Christ;  and  persecutes  those  who  live 
holily  according  to  the  Word  of  God  and  rebuke  her  for 
her  errors,  covetousness  and  idolatry.  These  two 
churches  [the  true  and  the  false]  are  easily  known  and 
distinguished  from  each  other."  The  Synod  of  Dort 
laid  down  these  principles,  as  against  the  Romish 
Church,  and  also  as  against  the  numerous  sects  exist- 
ing, as  general  rules  to  be  observed.  But  if  one  in- 
sists that  this  Synod  did  demand  rigid  discipline  as  an 
indispensable  mark  of  a  true  church,  then  this  synod 
must  likewise  be  held  to  have  insisted  on  persecution 
as  a  necessary  mark  for  a  false  church.  Persecution 
as  a  mark  of  a  false  church,  was  entirely  lacking  in 
the  Reformed  Church  in  1857,  and  hence  the  western 
Seceders  of  that  time  were  schismatics  and  rebels,  ac- 
cording to  Art.  29  of  their  own  Confession,  for  they 
were  the  ones  who  insisted  on  the  strict  interpretation 
of  the  Church  Standards  so  strenuously. 

Reformed  theologians,  of  course,  understood  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  and  they  were  not  slow  in  explaining 
the  meaning  of  Art.  29  of  the  Confession.  (This  con- 
fession was  revised  a  little  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and 
is  hence  often  spoken  of  as  the  work  of  Dort).  John 
a  Marck,  a  Dutch  theologian  of  the  first  rank,  and  af- 
ter him,  Bernard  de  Moor  and  Turretin,  soon  explained 
that  the  real  marks  of  a  church  are  soundness  in  funda- 
mental doctrine  and  holiness  of  life,  and  that  the  three 
marks  of  Dort  are  not  equally  necessary,  and  that  there 
is  in  all  of  them  some  room  for  gradual  differences. 
In  view  of  the  two  ways  of  judging  a  church, — the 
scriptural  or  objective,  and  the  personal  or  subjective, 
methods, — great  care  is  required  to  reach  the  correct 
way.  The  subjective  way  says  that  the  church  is  a 
gathering  of  those  who  are  saved,  and  the  members 
must  therefore  be  characterized  by  holiness.    The  ob- 


118  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORISIED      FATHERS 

jective  manner  of  judging  is  that  from  the  outward 
appearance  of  a  church  as  such,  and  not  from  the  life 
of  members  directly.  The  difficulty  of  judging  the 
heart  is  avoided  in  the  latter,  and,  consequently,  also 
the  danger  of  falling  into  the  Labadistic  ideas  of  a 
pure  and  spotless  churqh  on  earth.  This  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  scriptural,  objective  test  is  the  only 
safe  way,  and  that  therefore  the  holiness  of  members 
is  not  the  mark  of  a  church,  but  the  character  in  which 
the  church  shows  herself  is  the  real  mark.  The  Labad- 
ists,  and  like  sects,  forgot  that  the  present  dispensa- 
tion is  full  of  imperfections,  that  the  heart  is  not 
amenable  to  human  judgment,  and  that  they  cannot 
separate  the  wheat  from  the  tares  until  the  harvest, 
that  the  elect  are  concealed  more  or  less,  and  that  there 
are  churches  where  all  the  elect  members  have  died, 
while  other  elect  ones  have  not  yet  joined.  It  is  well 
here  to  consider  what  Calvin  says  about  the  Church  at 
Corinth  and  about  the  Jews. 

Dr.  Kuyper,  p.  171  of  his  work  on  the  Reformation 
of  Churches  says,  further,  that  a  church  must  have  a 
pure  confession  and  a  holy  life,  and  be  judged  only  as 
the  work  of  the  church  appears  from  the  life  of  her 
members.  The  question  is  not  whether  every  member 
is  pure  in  confession,  but  whether  the  church  makes 
the  good  confession,  and  whether  in  her  life  (wandel) 
as  a  church  respect  for,  and  obedience  to,  the  Scrip- 
tures is  in  evidence.  This  can  appear  only  from  her 
open  acts,  and  the  question  is,  is  her  preaching  the 
application  of  the  Word,  do  her  sacraments  carry  the 
sacramental  grace,  and  does  she  protect  the  Word  and 
sacraments  by  suitable  discipline?  This  is  the  general 
rule,  but  Reformed  theologians  let  slip  discipline  as  not 
necessary  to  the  being,  but  only  to  the  well-being  of  a 
church.  See  Witsius  against  the  Labadists,  pp.  159- 
174;  De  Moor,  Comm.  in  Marck  L.  V.  42;  and  Calvin's 
Institutes,  L.  IV.,  c9,  where  he  says  a  church  exists 
where  the  Word  and  sacraments  are,  even  though  not 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  119 

pure.  These  theologians  drop  discipline  as  a  mark  of 
the  true  church,  because  rigid  insistence  upon  that 
mark  leads  swiftly  to  Donatism  and  Labadism. 

Discipline  was  not  in  evidence  in  the  Christian 
Church  for  fifteen  centuries  or  more,  and  yet  the  church 
existed.  The  test  is  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  finds  in 
a  church  a  suitable  instrument  of  the  new  birth  of  the 
elect,  for  the  purpose  of  a  church  on  earth  is  to  be  the 
instrument  of  the  Spirit  to  that  end;  and  where  the 
Word  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  administered, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  has  such 
an  instrument,  so  that  discipline  cannot  be  an  indis- 
pensable mark  of  the  church  considered  in  her  being, 
not  well-being.  And  even  the  preaching  and  the  sacra- 
ments need  not  be  absolutely  pure,  for  minor  imperfec- 
tions in  doctrine  do  not  justify  secession.  See  Calvin's 
Institutes,  L.  IV. 

Turretin,  one  of  the  profoundest  of  Dutch  theo- 
logians, probably  ranking  next  to  Witsius,  has  cor- 
rectly laid  down  the  rule  when  he  says,  "Further,  let 
us  not  forget  that  the  three  marks  present  different 
degrees  of  necessity.  In  the  first  rank  stands  pure 
preaching  and  confession  of  the  Word,  without  which 
we  cannot  well  conceive  of  a  church ;  but  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments  is  evidently  of  less  im- 
portance, and  this  can  fall  away  without  the  church 
falling,  as  was  shown  in  Israel  repeatedly.  But  with 
discipline  we  go  still  farther,  and  say  that,  while  a 
church  cannot  be  kept  in  good  order  without  it,  the 
lack  of  discipline  does  not  in  itself  kill  the  essence 
(being)  of  the  church.  Further,  these  three  marks 
leave  a  certain  degree  of  liberty;  they  can  be  pure  or 
less  pure,  and  can  make  the  church  pure  or  less  pure, 
according  as  they  approach  or  recede  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. Defects  and  weaknesses  may  be  tolerated,  but 
not  fundamental  errors.  A  church  erring  in  funda- 
mentals cannot  remain  standing,  but  errors  in  a  few 
smaller  particulars  do  not  make  her  a  false  church. 
She  may  be  impure,  and  corrupt  in  part,  without  ceas- 
ing to  be  a  church.    Finally  be  it  noted,  that  a  church 


120  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

may  not  be  judged  from  particular  utterances  of  her 
leaders,  but  by  her  public  confession  which  she  has 
adopted  and  retained." — Kuyper's  Tractaat,  p.  173-4. 
This  reduces  the  question  of  a  right  to  secede  from 
a  church  to  a  much  narrower  basis  than  is  commonly 
supposed.  In  Michigan  some  of  the  Hollanders  claimed 
that  *'if  there  was  anything  in  the  Reformed  Church 
which  they  did  not  like,"  they  could  secede;  but  such 
a  doctrine  is  diametrically  opposed  to  all  Reformed 
doctrine,  as  gathered  and  classified  by  Calvin  and 
others,  and  as  declared  by  the  Synod  of  Dort.  The 
Church  of  Christ  is  one,  and  appears  locally  pure,  and 
sometimes  not  so  pure.  Dr.  Kuyper  says,  every  soul, 
not  any  more  entirely  dead,  lives;  and  every  soul  not 
yet  alive  is  entirely  dead ;  what  is  not  yet  false,  is  yet 
a  true  church,  and  what  is  not  any  more  a  true  church 
is  a  false  church.  And  the  general  rule  adopted  is  that 
when  fundamental  errors  overwhelm  a  church,  and 
there  is  no  saving  truth  of  importance  left,  such  church 
ceases  to  be  a  church,  and  has  become  a  false  church. 
Reformation  of  a  church  is  therefore  always  a  duty, 
while  desertion  or  secession  is  the  last  resort.  If  a 
church  is  yet  fit  to  be  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  bring 
to  light  the  elect,  she  is  not  a  false  church ;  but  if  the 
preaching  of  remission  of  sins  through  Christ  is  neg- 
lected and  interfered  with,  such  church  is  far  gone. 
But  if  there  are  faithful  members  in  a  church,  and  the 
church  does  not  proscribe  the  faithful,  the  latter  must 
labor  to  purify  this  church.  The  whole  matter  seems 
to  sim.mer  down  to  a  question  of  whether  a  local  church 
forces  her  faithful  members  to  engage  in  anything  not 
instituted  by  Christ,  or  into  disobedience  to  God.  If 
they  are  not  hindered  in  their  service  of  God  by  a  local 
church,  they  must  not  desert ;  for  if  the  Church  visible 
is  as  yet  a  manifestation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  is 
therefore  not  a  false  church,  (and  she  is  not,  so  long 
as  the  Word  and  sacraments  are  not  lacking) ,  secession 
is  really  rebellion.  A  human  body  may  be  weak,  but  is 
therefore  not  dead.  Secession  in  obedience  to  God  is 
not  secession,  but  is  a  return  to  the  real  church.    An 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  121 

attempt  to  reform  must  not  be  neglected,  and  only  a 
painful  necessity  justifies  secession ;  for  a  weak  or  de- 
fective church  is  not  a  false  church  according  to  Paul. 
In  the  local  church  obedience  to  God  must  be  main- 
tained and  expressed,  and  if  the  local  church  permits 
this,  she  is  not  dead  or  false.  Each  member  is  re- 
sponsible for  errors  or  defects  in  his  local  church,  and 
if  the  latter  does  not  prevent  efforts  at  reform,  she  is 
alive.  The  question  is,  is  the  being,  not  the  M^ell-being, 
of  the  church  gone. 

Getting  the  truth  out  of  the  Confession  or  out  of 
one's  own  experience  is  not  the  guide,  but  the  Bible  is 
the  only  safe  rule.  The  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
spoken  of  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  does  not  consist  in  predestination  or  any  one  doc- 
trine magnified  so  as  to  destroy  all  equilibrium  of  doc- 
trines, nor  in  the  use  of  psalms  only,  nor  in  preaching 
from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  nor  in  any  other  de- 
tail of  Church  Rules.  Purity  of  doctrine  does  not  con- 
sist in  what  a  few  uninformed  seceders  in  Holland  in 
1840,  or  in  Michigan  in  1857,  thought  it  was.  It  does 
not  consist  in  the  personal  opinion  or  anger  of  a  few, 
who  confuse  themselves  with  Christ,  like  Dr.  Fraeligh 
in  1822,  or  those  who  think  Christ  is  cast  out  of  the 
Reformed  Church,  because  they  are  thrown  out,  like 
Rev.  L.  J.  Hulst  in  1881.  It  does  not  consist  in  dissatis- 
faction with  church  decisions,  nor  in  rigid  adherence 
to  church  institutions  in  themselves,  nor  in  interpreting 
the  Bible  by  Church  Rules,  as  was  done  in  Michigan  in 
1857.  Forms  of  Concord  even  cannot  compel  the 
consciences  of  believers,  for  the  only  appeal  is  to  the 
Bible.  These  Forms  are  not  of  equal  importance  with 
the  Scriptures,  are  not  the  object  of  unconditional  ac- 
ceptance as  the  Bible  is,  and  they  can  and  ought  to  be 
changed  whenever  the  enlightened  conscience  of  all 
Reformed  Churches  of  the  world  is  ripe  for  the  change. 

If  the  Church  of  God  were  a  mere  human  institu- 
tion, the  matter  of  secession  would  be  comparatively 
simple;  but  since  the  church  is  divine  in  origin,  and 
the  Spirit  works  through  and  in  her,  it  is  necessary  to 


122  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

conclude  that  the  Lord  has  something  to  say  as  to 
whether  a  church  is  to  be  chastized  or  enlightened;  to 
conclude  that  a  highly  spiritual  church  is  the  work  of 
God,  and  not  the  gift  of  man ;  that  real  reformation  in 
the  Church  is  the  work  of  God;  and  that  desertion  of 
a  local  church  can  be  just  only  when  it  occurs  in  neces- 
sary obedience  to  God,  not  in  self-righteous  Pharisee- 
ism.  So  long  as  a  church  is  not  false  or  dead,  a  seces- 
sion is  never  right,  unless  such  church  persecutes  those 
who  try  to  live  holily,  and  casts  them  out. 

The  local  church,  in  the  Reformed  Churches,  is  the 
point  of  beginning  in  the  church  on  earth ;  she  is  a  com- 
plete manifestation  of  the  universal  church;  she  ex- 
presses the  unity  of  that  greater  church  to  the  fullest 
extent  by  recognizing  and  joining  other  churches;  but 
by  the  act  of  joining,  the  local  church — pastor,  elders 
and  deacons — surrenders  none  of  her  rights  and 
powers.  In  classes  and  synods  the  local  churches  are 
present  themselves,  and  they  can  legislate  and  decide 
on  matters  of  general  concern,  as  the  exchange  of 
members,  and  the  like.  But  nothing  can  be  done  by 
classes  and  synods  which  violates  the  Scriptures ;  and  a 
local  church  cannot,  by  joining  other  churches,  sell  or 
dispose  of  the  existing  scriptural  rights  of  the  least  of 
her  members,  nor  of  herself,  nor  can  larger  bodies 
usurp  the  powers  of  local  churches.  And  those  larger 
bodies  are  composed,  not  of  the  men  present,  but  of  the 
local  churches  present  by  their  representatives,  and 
such  bodies  as  classes  and  synods,  therefore,  never 
exist  except  when  the  several  local  churches  actually 
come  together  there ;  and  when  they  adjourn  they  pass 
out  of  existence  completely,  and  are  referred  to  by 
number  and  year  simply  for  purposes  of  facilitating 
reference  to  their  minutes.  But  while  broader 
assemblies  like  synods  do  not  "put  their  sickle  into  a 
strange  grainfield,"  it  is  a  logical  deduction  from  the 
principle  of  the  autonomy  of  the  local  churches  that 
when  such  churches  are  assembled  in  a  synod,  and 
have  brought  their  full  powers  together  there,  such 
synod  may  also  speak  with  authority,  provided  it  speaks 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  123 

the  language  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testament.  Re- 
formed people  all  admit  the  authority  of  synods,  pro- 
vided they  speak  in  consonance  with  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  in  Reformed  circles,  the  bone 
of  contention  often  is,  not  so  much  what  the  powers 
and  authority  of  synods  are,  as  what  the  Scriptures 
really  require, — a  question,  which  is  at  the  base  of  the 
Masonic  controversy  among  the  Hollanders  in  the  West, 
where  some  believe  Masonry  can  be  condemned  in  the 
mass  by  a  synod,  while  others  believe  the  errors  in 
Masonry,  if  such  there  be,  can  only  be  reached  by 
discipline  in  the  local  church  in  case  of  "actual  facts, 
and  those  proved,"  in  an  individual  case. 

If  a  synod  or  a  classis  acts  for  the  several  local 
churches,  within  the  bounds  authorized  by  such  local 
churches,  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  these 
higher  bodies  must  not  be  ignored;  but  if  such  synod 
attempts  to  force  errors  in  fundamentals  on  a  local 
church,  the  latter  has  a  right  to  refuse  compliance;  if 
she  refuses  to  obey  illegal  orders  from  above,  no  one 
has  a  right  to  secede  from  her,  but  she  has,  if  forced 
to  obey  or  be  cut  off,  a  right  to  break  with  the  higher 
organization;  and  if  she  obeys  illegal  synod  orders, 
and  becomes  a  policeman  for  the  Synod,  her  local  mem- 
bers, if  forced  to  comply,  have  a  right  to  demand  re- 
form, or  to  secede  if  forced  to  submit.  Members,  as 
before  stated,  secede  from  a  local  church,  while  a  local 
church  does  the  seceding  from  a  denomination.  If  the 
local  church  permits  and  requires  obedience  to  God  by 
her  members,  none  may  secede ;  and  if  a  synod  permits 
and  requires  a  local  church  to  maintain  obedience  to 
God,  such  local  church  may  not  secede ;  but  if  a  synod 
forces  important  error  on  a  church,  the  latter  must 
protest,  and  if  placed  under  constraint,  has  the  legal 
right  to  secede.  If  the  local  church,  that  is,  the  con- 
sistory, vindicates  the  Word  as  against  the  rest  of  the 
denomination,  it  is  rebellion  to  secede  from  such 
church. 

If  the  duty  of  a  church  member  is  to  see  that  his 
local  church  follows  the  Scriptural  rule,  and  if  his  local 


124  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

church  is  a  member  of  a  denomination,  this  church 
member  has  a  right  to  insist  that  his  church  does  not 
assist  the  denomination  in  forcing  fundamental  error 
on  other  local  churches.  Of  course,  in  all  these  matters 
the  rule  of  charity  must  be  observed ;  but  fundamental 
errors  must  be  resisted;  and  the  whole  matter  comes 
down  to  the  old  rules  laid  down  by  Calvin  and  the  other 
later  Reformed  fathers,  viz. :  that  one  must  remain  in 
the  local  church,  and  the  local  church  must  remain  in 
the  denomination,  until  reform  is  so  strongly  resisted 
that  persecution  results  in  casting  out  the  reformer. 
This  rule  of  casting  out,  or  persecution,  given  by  Dort 
as  a  sign  of  a  false  church,  is  therefore  generally, 
though  not  always,  a  safe  rule  to  follow.  Luther  fol- 
lowed it;  Rev.  De  Cock  followed  it  in  1834,  and  Dr. 
Kuyper  in  1886 ;  while  in  America  the  Holland  seceders 
did  "the  casting  out"  themselves.  The  only  exception 
to  the  above  rule  is  where  a  church  or  denomination  is 
so  inefficient,  so  negligent,  and  so  moribund,  that  it 
even  neglects  or  refuses  to  cast  out  protesting  reform- 
ers ;  but  such  an  exception  even  did  not  exist  in  1822  or 
1857  to  justify  those  secessions. 

What  Calvin,  Brakel,  and  others  say  about  the  right 
of  secession,  will  be  given  in  detail  later  on  in  another 
series  of  papers,  so  that  the  reader  may  see  what  "Re- 
formed doctrine"  says  about  the  subject.  But  it  is 
necessary  to  state  that  the  Roman  Catholic  system  of 
church  government  is  that  of  a  pure  monarchy;  the 
Lutheran,  that  of  a  territorial  monarchy ;  the  Congre- 
gational, that  of  a  democracy  with  synods  and  higher 
bodies  as  unimportant ;  the  Collegial  system,  that  of  the 
absolute  independence  of  each  church  member,  as  in- 
volved in  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution ;  and 
that  the  Reformed  system  is  a  democracy  of  local 
churches,  as  independent  units  in  the  universal  church, 
of  which  the  local  church  is  the  beginning,  and  synods, 
etc.,  are  only  resultants  of  the  confederation  of  local 
churches  freely  joining  in  obedience  to  the  invisible  or 
spiritual  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Romish 
church  distrusted  this  spiritual  unity,  and  substituted 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  125 

a  worldly  government  of  popes  and  priests,  where  the 
laity  is  nothing.  The  Reformed  system  has  as  its  foun- 
dation offices  established  by  God — pastor,  elder,  and 
deacon — the  consistory,  which  derives  its  powers  from 
God,  although  elected  by  men.  The  layman  is  very  im- 
portant in  Reformed  churches.  The  authority  of  a  con- 
sistory does  not  consist  of  powers  surrendered  by  men, 
but  of  powers  given  by  Christ;  and  hence  it  follows 
that  when  a  denomination  is  formed  by  several  local 
Reformed  Churches,  the  combined  government  of  this 
Church,  whether  called  synod  or  council,  can  do  noth- 
ing to  destroy  the  being,  the  essence,  the  rights  or 
powers  of  local  churches;  but  such  denomination  is 
simply  the  result  of  the  efforts  of  those  local  churches 
to  approach  the  unity  of  the  invisible  church,  and  hence 
these  synods  or  higher  bodies  are  exceedingly  import- 
ant, and  may  not  be  broken  with,  unless,  after  protests 
and  attempted  reform,  these  higher  bodies  are  guilty  of 
letting  loose  overwhelming  errors.  Unity  is  a  strong 
characteristic  in  the  Church  of  Christ;  the  denomina- 
tions are  a  great  step  towards  this  ideal  unity,  and 
therefore  consistories  of  local  churches  must  mind  their 
steps  closely  before  tearing  the  greater  unity  in  pieces. 
The  difference  between  the  being  and  well-being  of  a 
local  church  must  not  be  ignored  in  considering  the 
sundering  of  the  greater  ties  of  denominational  unity. 
Dr.  Kuyper  also  says,  p.  203  of  his  work  on  Church 
Reformation,  that  the  Seceders  in  Holland  (since  1840) 
copied  the  error  of  the  rationalists  and  Groningers, 
namely,  that  there  was  a  great  national  church  in  Hol- 
land with  local  branches,  and  that  they  thought  what 
the  Church  in  a  local  division,  at  Ulrum  for  example, 
did,  was  done  by  the  whole  denomination,  and  that 
therefore  secession  from  the  whole  organization  was 
necessary  in  case  of  important  errors  locally.  They 
failed  to  grasp  the  idea  that  the  connection  with  other 
churches  was  simply  the  result  of  combination  of  local 
churches  in  which  the  real  essence  of  the  church  was 
lodged,  and  not  in  the  combination.  They  thought  the 
denomination  was  the  main   idea,   and  that  a  local 


126  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

church  was  merely  a  compartment  of  the  larger  organ- 
ization— a  great  error,  which  involved  an  indorsement 
of  Rome,  and  a  repudiation  of  the  Reformation. 

What  has  been  said  above  may  generally  be  applied 
to  denominations,  although  matters  there  become  very 
complicated  when  some  churches  in  the  denomination 
deviate  from  the  truth  while  others  do  not.  Denomi- 
nations must,  however,  be  judged  by  about  the  same 
standard  as  a  local  church  is,  and  that  standard  is 
purity  in  essentials  only. 

Dr.  Kuyper,  in  1884,  really  classed  the  seceders  of 
1834  as  "Doleerende,"  that  is,  Complaining  Churches, 
only  temporarily  out  of  the  church  connection.  In 
order  to  justify  their  secession  into  an  independent 
denomination  they  had  to  consider  as  false  churches  all 
the  orthodox  churches  in  the  State  Church  in  Holland, 
— which  they  did  not;  and  if  such  were  not  false 
churches,  the  seceders  were  really  schismatics,  which 
conclusion  they  also  denied ;  hence  they  were  Complain- 
ing Churches  organized  independently  too  hastily. 

Dr.  Kuyper,  apropos  of  the  idea  that  the  change  of 
a  church  from  a  true  to  a  false  church  was  not  a  matter 
of  a  few  days  or  years,  but  a  long  process  of  decay, 
says  on  page  197  of  his  Tractaat  van  Reformatie  van 
Kerken:  "And  now  we  do  not  see  how  according  to  the 
Scripture  and  history  it  can  be  maintained  that  a 
church  must  be  considered  a  false  church  or  a  syna- 
gogue of  Satan,  solely  on  account  of  the  impure  organ- 
ization with  which  it  is  affiliated.  In  view  of  the  ter- 
rible defection  and  corruption  in  the  church  of  Israel, 
and  in  view  of  the  decades  and  centuries  our  fathers 
hesitated  before  they  considered  the  errors  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  sufficient  to  justify  secession,  we 
naturally  get  the  impression  that  the  seceders  [of  1834 
and  later]  cannot  escape  the  charge  of  having  given 
up  the  sick  too  soon,  and  of  having  ordered  the  funeral 
of  many  a  church  which  by  God's  goodness  revived  and 
flourished."  This  is  certainly  peculiarly  strong  testi- 
mony against  the  seceders  from  the  Reformed  Church 
in  America,  where  the  local  churches  and  the  govern- 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  127 

ment  of  the  Church— the  General  Synod— were  in  bet- 
ter health  than  the  seceders  themselves. 

Rullman,  in  his  Strijd  voor  Kerkherstel,  p.  303,  says 
that  Dr.  Kuyper,  relative  to  the  danger  of  being  sus- 
pended and  cut  off  on  account  of  opposition  to  receiv- 
ing members  from  other  churches  by  certificate  who 
were  unsound  in  doctrine,  said  in  substance :  "In  such 
case  we  could  break  with  the  synodal  organization,  but 
to  do  so  would  conflict  with  the  way  in  which  God's 
children  have  walked  from  Paradise  till  the  present 
day.  Those  do  not  begin  by  breaking;  they  permit 
others  to  do  the  breaking;  they  first  allow  others  to 
strike  them  and  to  cast  them  out,  and  then  they  con- 
sider what  must  be  done."  Savornin  Lohman,  on  p. 
304,  same  work,  is  quoted  as  saying  of  Kuyper:  "But 
he  did  not  break,  on  the  ground  that  the  breaking  of 
the  bond  with  the  State  Church  would  be  considered  too 
much  of  an  arbitrary  act." 

What  Dr.  Kuyper,  who  was  actually  cast  out  in 
1886,  has  written  about  the  usurpation  of  seceders  who 
"tear  the  most  sacred  bonds,"  is  too  voluminous  for 
quotation  here,  but  it  is  strong  enough  to  completely 
overthrow  the  defences  of  the  secessions  from  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  America.  Even  Free  Masonry,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  his  opinion,  did  not  justify  the  seces- 
sion of  1882. 

Most  of  the  ideas  in  this  chapter  are  those  of  Dr. 
Kuyper,  as  he  deduced  them  from  Calvin  and  the  Scrip- 
tures. Kuyper  studied  the  question,  and  whatever  he 
studied  he  mastered.  If  Kuyper,  or  rather,  Calvin, 
then,  stated  as  the  correct  New  Testament  rule  that 
when  the  essentials  are  not  lacking,  minor  impurity  in 
doctrine  and  great  laxity  of  discipline,  and  even  un- 
christian conduct  in  church  members,  do  not  make  a 
true  church  a  false  one,  it  is  not  plain  what  conceivable 
right  the  seceders  of  1857  in  Michigan  had  to  secede 
from  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  "and  all  the  other 
Protestant  denominations,"  on  the  ground  of  difference 
on  mere  questions  involved  in  Church  Rules,  or  on 


128  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

questions  of  placing  more  or  less  emphasis  on  certain 
cardinal  doctrines. 

The  logical  deduction  from  the  New  Testament 
"plans  and  specifications"  of  God's  House,  as  further 
developed  from  the  Scriptures  by  the  Reformed  fathers 
from  Calvin  to  date,  referred  to  in  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  is  that  each  and  every  local  church  of 
every  denomination  is,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  an 
autonomous,  complete  representative  of  the  Church 
Universal,  with  the  Scriptures  as  its  rule  of  faith  and 
conduct.  From  this  it  follows  that  such  local  church 
must  aspire  to,  and  follow  after,  the  greatest  Christian 
unity  attainable,  in  denominations  if  need  be,  but  in  as 
few  denominations  as  possible.  In  pursuing  the  ideal 
unity  or  in  the  approach  to  unity,  such  local  church  re- 
tains all  its  powers  and  rights,  subject  only  to  the 
legitimate  demands  of  the  required  unity.  The  local 
church  must  submit  to  the  rule  of  the  Bible  absolutely, 
and  under  that  rule  she  may  not  sell  or  compromise  her 
own  rights,  nor  those  of  the  least  of  her  members.  It 
is,  therefore,  a  question,  e.  g.,  in  the  matter  of  church 
music  and  all  other  questions  not  directly  passed  on  in 
the  Scriptures,  whether  those  higher  or  broader  bodies 
like  Classes  and  synods,  can  dictate  to  the  local  churches 
at  all,  except  to  require  such  local  churches  to  observe 
due  care  in  preventing  unscriptural  abuses  in  those 
matters.  The  law  of  Christian  Liberties  allows  great 
latitude  in  matters  not  touching  salvation,  and  it  is 
clear  that  no  one  may  lay  "another  yoke"  upon  such 
churches.  These  "liberties"  are  allowed  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  local  churches  have  a  right  to  insist 
upon  the  use  thereof.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
law  of  common  responsibility  of  one  church  for  the 
faults  or  irregularities  of  other  churches  in  the  de- 
nomination, called  in  Dutch,  soUdaire  verantwoorde- 
lijkheid,  when  it  comes  into  play  at  all,  applies  in  case 
of  essentials  only,  and  not  to  things  indifferent  and 
those  subject  to  the  law  of  the  Liberties.  And  hence, 
when  there  are  abuses  or  errors  in  a  certain  local 
church    or    churches    of    a    denomination,   the    other 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  129 

churches  of  this  denomination  are  not  responsible,  and 
are  not  in  duty  bound  to  secede,  until  these  abuses, 
fostered  instead  of  repressed  by  the  denomination,  be- 
come overwhelming  errors,  and  the  saving  truths  are 
impaired  to  such  an  extent  that  they  are  practically 
lost.  So  long  as  errors  are  not  overwhelming  funda- 
mental errors,  the  duty  of  the  local  church  may  be  to 
remonstrate  and  to  attempt  reformation,  but  she  does 
not  become  responsible  for  those  errors  until  they  be- 
come so  overwhelming  that  the  inevitable  result  in  such 
church  or  denomination  is  the  subversion  of  the  saving 
truths.  When  errors  and  corruption  have  usurped  the 
place  of  sound  doctrine  and  practice  in  a  church,  and 
the  unavoidable  consequence  in  such  church  or  denomi- 
nation is  rationalism  or  something  worse,  separation 
certainly  has  become  "the  duty  of  all  believers."  But 
when  the  Law  of  Liberties  is  applied  and  all  the  saving 
doctrines  are  preached  in  a  Church  as  was  the  case  in 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  1857,  secession  on  ac- 
count of  the  use  of  hymns,  Sunday  Schools,  and  other 
"things  indifferent"  is  heresy  and  rebellion,  according 
to  the  Reformed  Fathers. 

It  is  evident  that  the  seceders  in  Michigan,  in  1857, 
knew  about  this  law  of  common  responsibility,  but  did 
not  understand  its  proper  application,  for  they  set  up 
a  series  of  facts  upon  which  to  invoke  this  law  against 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  consisting  of  matters  en- 
tirely within  the  domain  of  the  Christian  Liberties. 
They  drew  up  an  indictment  against  the  Reformed 
Church  containing  four  or  five  accusations  of  errors, 
which,  if  admitted  to  be  true,  were  no  worse  than  the 
"corrections"  which  the  seceders  substituted  for  the 
alleged  errors.  They  charged  the  Reformed  Church 
with  deviations,  which  were  as  much,  (if  not  more), 
in  accord  with  recognized  Reformed  practice,  as  their 
own  boasted  "return  to  Dort."  These  seceders,  under 
the  spell  of  what  occurred  in  the  Netherlands  some 
years  before,  interjected  certain  extreme  notions  into 
the  Reformed  system,  and  thought  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  heterodox  when  she  refused  to  accept  their 


130  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

innovations.  In  Reformed  Churches  common  responsi- 
bility exists  for  essential  matters  only,  and  not  for 
things  indifferent;  nor  does  it  exist  for  errors  even, 
until  after  protest  and  attempted  reformation,  these 
errors  become  so  strong  and  overwhelming  that  the 
church  has  lost  its  character  and  has  become  a  false 
church.  In  that  case  the  marks  of  the  true  church  are 
lacking,  and  the  inevitable  result  is  that  fundamental 
errors  and  corruption — ^the  marks  of  the  false  church 
— only  are  present.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  members 
of  such  a  church  become  personally  responsible  under 
the  law  of  common  responsibility. 

But,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  this  law  of 
common  responsibility  applies  to  the  essentials,  such 
as  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  salvation  through  Christ 
only.  This  law  certainly  compels  us  to  leave  a  false 
church  which  has  seceded  from  Christ,  in  order  that 
we  may  remain  in  the  true  church.  But  this  same  law 
of  common  responsibility  just  as  powerfully  compels 
us  never  to  secede  from  a  church  which  holds  fast  to 
the  essentials  of  salvation  through  Christ.  We  may 
not  secede  from  a  church  on  account  of  hymns,  feast- 
days,  differences  in  conception  of  the  application  of 
subordinate  doctrines  and  of  Church  Rules.  The  law 
of  common  responsibility  compels  us  to  do  exactly  the 
opposite  of  what  the  Seceders  of  1822  and  1857  did. 
If  we  must  "speak  the  same  thing"  and  "be  perfectly 
joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judg- 
ment," and  if  Paul  was  right  when  he  said,  "Let  no  man 
judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy- 
day,  or  of  a  new  moon  or  of  the  sabbath-days,"  (Col. 
2:16),  and  when  he  said,  "Nevertheless,  whereto  we 
have  already  attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  let 
us  mind  the  same  thing,"  (Phil.  3:16),  the  law  of  com- 
mon responsibility  operates  strongly  against  secession 
from  a  church  which  has  adopted  and  applied  a  sys- 
tem under  which  alone  it  is  possible  "to  speak  the  same 
thing,"  and  to  "mind  the  same  thing,"  namely,  uni- 
formity in  essentials,  and  the  principles  of  the  Preface 
of  Wesel   in   subordinate  and  non-essential   matters. 


THE      LOCAL      CHURCH  131 

When  Groen  Van  Prinsterer,  in  the  Netherlands,  said 
in  1848,  in  substance,  as  will  be  more  fully  shown  later, 
that  common  responsibility  rested  upon  the  members 
of  a  church  for  everything  which  flows  from,  and  is  the 
necessary  result  of  the  nature  of  that  church,  he  was 
not  referring  to  seceding  from  the  Dutch  Church  in 
America,  or  from  his  own — ^the  State  Church,  for  he 
specifically  refers  to  a  rationalistic  church,  which,  as 
he  says,  "has  laid  aside  the  whole  armor  of  God."  What- 
ever we  may  think  of  the  State  Church  of  Van 
Prinsterer's  time, — a  Church  which  he  refused  to 
secede  from, — there  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  law  of 
common  responsibility  demands  that  we  shall  not  dic- 
tate the  use  of  psalms,  feast-days,  and  other  things  in 
conflict  with  the  New  Testament  spirit  in  any  Church 
of  Christ  as  the  Seceders  of  1857  attempted  in  the  Re- 
formed Church  and  the  Classis  of  Holland.  These 
seceders  applied  the  law  of  "solidaire  responsibility"  to 
a  wrong  set  of  facts;  and  as  a  result,  their  secession 
from  the  Reformed  Church  of  that  day  was  not  based 
on  a  solid  and  scriptural  foundation.  The  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  was  certainly  more  closely  modeled  after 
the  plans  and  specifications  of  God's  House  than  was 
the  Secession  Church  in  1857. 


132  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


IX.    WHAT  IS  A  REFORMED  CHURCH? 


T 


HE  Christian  Church  is  not  an  association  with  a 
foundation  changing  from  day  to  day,  but  is  a 
divine  institution  based  on  truths  whose  accept- 
ance, at  all  times,  is  the  bond  of  believers.  She  is  not 
a  debating  society  or  a  scientific  school,  nor  a  club  of 
individuals  ruled  by  changing  beliefs.  The  Church  is 
in  her  organic  life  like  a  tree  with  many  limbs,  con- 
nected with  the  body  and  roots.  So  long  as  a  branch 
is  on  the  living  tree,  it  flourishes,  but  if  cut  off,  it 
withers  and  dies.  The  church  is  often  compared  to  a 
building  on  a  sure  foundation, — a  foundation  which 
can  never  be  disturbed.  But  the  church  is  not  brick 
and  stone,  but  a  living  organism,  the  body  of  Christ, 
"rooted  and  built  up  in  Him,  and  established  in  the 
faith,"  and  "increaseth  with  the  increase  of  God."  The 
learned  Van  Prinsterer  said,  "No  believers,  no  com- 
pany of  believers,  may  consider  themselves  isolated 
from  this  divine  whole,  of  v/hich  Christ  is  the  head. 
Many  do  not  consider  that  the  root  is  often  disowned 
by  seceding  from  one  of  the  branches,  the  foundation 
denied  in  the  denial  of  part  of  the  living  stones  of  the 
building,  and  the  Head  rejected  in  the  rejection  of  the 
members.  The  church  must  be  tested  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  we  must  be  careful  not  to  reject  divine  truth, 
in  whatever  form  it  appears,  lest  we  reject  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  and  deny  what  God  works  in  the 
Church." — V.  P.  Het  Recht  der  Hervormde  Gezind- 
heid,  p.  52. 

One  of  these  branches  of  the  Christian  Church  is 
the  Reformed  Church  or  Churches,  but  as  such  branch 
she  may  not  without  the  best  evidence  pronounce  other 
branches  dead.    How  came  so  many  branches  in  exist- 


WHAT      IS      A      REFORMED      CHURCH?  133 

ence?  The  sense  of  the  Scriptures  was  from  time  to 
time  gathered  by  the  enlightened  spiritual  conscience 
of  holy  men  in  the  church,  in  councils  assembled,  when 
occasion  required  a  specific  declaration.  All  did  not 
think  alike,  and  since  Paul  speaks  of  a  certain  liberty 
even  in  matters  of  doctrine,  churches  already  some- 
what divided  by  lines  of  geography  and  race,  in  some 
respects  also  differed  in  their  declarations  of  Bible 
truths.  It  so  happened  that  the  Reformation  was  a 
vast  movement  to  get  away  from  the  Rules  of  the 
Romish  Church,  which  were  considered  unscriptural, 
and  it  was  during  this  time  that  these  seceding  or  re- 
forming churches  proceeded  to  voice  new  declarations 
of  their  principles  of  faith  and  doctrine.  The  Luther- 
ans in  Germany,  and  the  so-called  Reformed  people  in 
France,  Switzerland,  Germany,  Holland,  etc.,  adopted 
Confessions  of  Faith,  differing,  of  course,  on  certain 
points,  such  as  the  doctrine  and  formulas  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  the  like.  Holland  and  Belgium  were  in 
those  days  spoken  of  as  one  country,  and  the  latter  was 
called  New  Belgium  for  a  while.  Guido  de  Bres,  who 
in  1562,  wrote  the  so-called  Netherlands  Confession, 
lived  in  Belgium.  The  Belgian  and  Holland  Reformed 
Churches  gradually  adopted  this  creed:  hence  it  is 
called  the  Belgic  Confession.  The  Reformed  churches 
elsewhere  adopted  the  same  or  similar  confessions,  and 
so  this  confession  became  the  Form  of  Concord,  or  of 
Agreement,  of  all  Reformed  Churches.  The  Heidel- 
berg Catechism,  written  in  Germany,  in  1563,  also 
gradually  became  recognized  in  all  Reformed  Churches, 
and  so  became  the  second  Form  of  Concord.  In  1618- 
19,  practically  all  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe 
were  present  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  there  revised 
the  first  Form  of  Concord  a  little.  Owing  to  the  un- 
certainty created  by  the  Arminians  of  that  day,  this 
Synod  also  took  a  part  of  the  said  Form  of  Concord, 
and  amplified  it  into  what  became  known  as  the  Canons 
of  Dort.  The  Canons,  adopted  at  this  general  Council 
of  Reformed  Churches  at  Dort,  therefore  became  the 
third  Form  of  Concord.    These  Canons  deal  principally 


134  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

with  the  questions  of  predestination  and  free-will,  and 
the  abuse  of  these  doctrines.  They  were  only  an  en- 
largement of  what  the  Confession  had  said  in  briefer 
form.  Since  the  Synod  of  Dort  no  general  Council  of 
Reformed  Churches  has  been  held,  and  no  revision  of 
the  three  forms  has  been  made.  , 

The  Synod  of  Dort,  after  the  foreign  delegates  had 
withdrawn,  remained  in  session  as  a  national  synod  for 
the  Reformed  Churches  in  Holland,  and  as  such,  re- 
vised the  Rules  of  Church  Government,  adopted  at  sev- 
eral preceding  national  synods,  as  the  times  and  cir- 
cumstances required.  These  Rules  are  not  character- 
istic of  all  Reformed  Churches,  and  are  not  therefore 
one  of  the  Forms  of  Concord.  They  are  rules  adopted 
only  by  the  churches  of  one  nation  or  denomination, 
for  the  better  order  of  such  churches,  and  are,  by  their 
own  terms,  liable  to  changes  as  the  interest  of  the 
church  may  require  from  time  to  time.  The  desirability 
of  changes  in  Church  Rules  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of 
judgment  in  the  churches  of  a  denomination,  expressed 
in  a  duly  authorized  general  synod  or  council;  while 
the  matter  of  altering  the  Forms  of  Concord  is  the  con- 
cern of  all  Reformed  Churches,  to  be  expressed  in  an 
international  or  world  synod.  Church  Rules,  being  a 
matter  of  denominational  concern  only,  and  covering, 
as  they  do,  many  matters  not  found  in  the  Scriptures, 
or  not  necessarily  deduced  therefrom,  but  being  largely 
subject  to  the  law  of  Christian  Liberties,  are  applicable 
only  so  far  as  circumstances,  and  the  free  consent  of 
local  churches,  permit.  They  cannot  compel  the 
consciences  of  believers;  and  if  they  cannot,  they  are 
not  an  infallible  mark  of  a  Reformed  Church,  and 
hence  cannot  be  exalted  into  a  place  co-ordinate  with 
the  Forms  of  Concord.  The  fundamental  error  of  the 
seceders  in  Michigan,  in  1857,  was  that  they  took  the 
Rules  of  Dort,  (which  the  Fathers  of  Dort  said  were 
of  a  temporary  nature,  and  "may"  and  "ought"  to  be 
"changed") ,  and  made  of  them  the  equivalent  of  a  Form 
of  Concord  or  a  mark  of  the  true  church.  When  a 
church  sings  hymns,  and  conducts  Sunday  Schools  in- 


^.x 


G.  GROEN  VAN  PRINSTERER 


136  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

stead  of  catechetical  classes,  she  is  not  violating  the 
Forms  of  Concord,  but  has  changed  mere  Church 
Orders  as  the  interest  of  the  churches  may  have  re- 
quired. The  Seceders  of  1857  therefore  seceded,  ac- 
cording to  their  published  reasons,  on  account  of  the 
changes  made  in  the  Rules  of  Dort  by  the  authorized 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America. 
And  thus  Graafschap  and  the  Seceders  of  1857 
ascribed  more  real  authority  to  the  writings  of  men 
than  to  the  Word  of  God. 

In  our  political  life  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  while  the  several 
States  of  the  Union  have  constitutions,  differing  great- 
ly from  each  other,  yet  in  harmony  with  the  Federal 
Constitution,  and,  while  the  many  townships  and  cities 
have  their  own  laws  and  police  regulations,  as  various 
as  the  number  of  these  municipalities,  but  all  in  con- 
sonance with  the  spirit  of  the  State  and  Federal  Con- 
stitutions. All  these  laws  are  based  on  the  principle 
of  allowing  the  largest  liberty,  consistent  with  the 
general  welfare,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  States  and 
townships.  In  Reformed  Church  life  the  same  prin- 
ciples apply.  The  Scriptures  are  the  supreme  law,  and 
the  Confessions  or  Forms  of  Concord  are  like  the  State 
constitution,  while  the  Church  Orders  or  Rules  are  like 
the  local  police  regulations  of  townships,  villages,  and 
cities.  Confessions  and  Church  Rules  may  vary  in 
many  particulars,  but  may  not  conflict  with  the  Scrip- 
tures. Church  Rules  may  allow  the  largest  liberty  to 
the  local  churches,  provided  they  do  not  conflict  with 
the  Confession  or  the  Scriptures.  This  is  the  under- 
lying principle  of  the  whole  Reformation,  based  on  the 
epistles  of  Paul.  In  fact,  Church  Rules  must  allow  the 
largest  liberty  to  the  local  churches,  or  they  are  not 
Reformed  and  scriptural.  At  any  rate,  no  township  or 
city  ever  dreamed  of  seceding  from  a  State  or  the 
Union,  when  she  failed  to  impose  her  own  police  rules 
on  the  whole  State  or  Nation.  And  yet,  this  would  be 
exactly  the  equivalent  of  what  the  Seceders  of  1857  at- 
tempted.   These  seceded  largely  because  they  were  not 


WHAT      IS      A      REFORMED      CHURCH?  137 

allowed  to  construe  their  own  "largest  liberty"  into  the 
destruction  of  the  largest  liberty  of  other  churches. 
Graafschap,  according  to  her  own  declaration,  seceded 
in  1857,  because  she  was  not  allowed  to  dictate  her  own 
conception  of  Church  Rules  to  the  rest  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  It  was  the  seceders  —  not  the  Reformed 
Church — who  were  dictating  unreformed  rules,  and  in 
this  fact  lies  the  fundamental  error  of  that  Secession. 
It  was  as  if  Holland  Township  would  have  seceded 
after  having  demanded  the  acceptance  of  her  police 
regulations  by  all  the  other  municipalities  of  the 
United  States,  instead  of  allowing  all  other  municipali- 
ties to  make  rules  of  their  own  in  harmony  with  the 
State  and  Federal  Constitutions. 

The  Forms  of  Concord,  while  recognizing  the  work 
of  the  great  Christian  Councils  of  the  first  four  cen- 
turies, which  had  formulated  the  doctrines  of  the  tri- 
nity, of  election,  and  the  like,  were  drawn  so  as  to  dis- 
tinguish sharply  the  Reformed  Churches  from  the  Rom- 
ish Church;  but  these  forms  were  deduced  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  did  not  reject  what  was  true  in  the 
Romish  Church,  and  therefore  they  contain  the  confes- 
sions of  eighteen  centuries  of  painstaking  study  of  the 
Bible.  They  are  the  "slowly  ripening  fruit  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  written 
memorials  of  the  victory  of  truth  over  error."  They 
are,  as  Van  Prinsterer  called  them,  "an  echo  of  the 
testimony  of  Jesus;  they  are  the  memorials  of  the 
church  militant ;  unchanging  witnesses  of  the  faith  de- 
livered to  the  saints;  links  of  the  same  chain;  mile- 
posts  that  show  the  paths  trodden  before, — not  for  us 
to  remain  standing  there,  but  from  which  to  go  for- 
ward in  the  way  where  God  leads,"  V.  P.  Het  Regt,  p. 
50.  These  forms  are  called  the  Symbolical  Writings  of 
the  Church,  and  they  are  the  "golden  thread  of  agree- 
ment" God  has  shot  through  the  errors  of  the  world 
lying  in  sin  and  darkness.  They  are  the  public  confes- 
sion the  Church  makes  before  God  and  men,  the  kernel 
of  divine  truth  in  the  Church.  If  all  doctrines,  as  Cal- 
vin taught,  are  not  of  the  same  importance,  there  may 


138  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

be,  and  are,  some  differences  in  the  several  creeds  of 
the  Universal  Church ;  and  this  fact  at  once  shows  the 
importance  of  not  making  essentials  out  of  non-essen- 
tials, nor  of  making  salvation  to  consist  in  matters  left 
to  the  liberties  of  the  believer.  The  real  catholicity  of 
the  Christian  Church,  therefore,  consists  in  unity  in 
the  broad  essentials,  without  giving  an  exaggerated 
importance  to  things  not  essential.  And  this  same 
principle  applies  necessarily  to  each  denomination  or 
national  church. 

The  Forms  of  Concord,  the  standards  of  doctrine  in 
Reformed  Churches,  while  considered  higher  than  the 
mere  works  of  man  because  of  the  fact  that  they  are 
so  close  to  the  Scriptures,  are  yet  not  infallible,  and 
are  always  subject  to  the  light  of  the  Bible.  They  are 
not  to  be  accepted  unconditionally  or  in  a  narrow  sense, 
but  as  assistants  to  human  frailty,  and  as  expressing 
the  main  truths  of  the  Gospel.  They  are  the  means  of 
crystallizing  and  stabilizing  Reformed  truth,  so  as  to 
avoid  the  danger  of  a  rank  subjectivity  or  individual- 
ism, arbitrariness,  or  "a  revolutionary  omnipotence  of 
temporary  and  changing  majorities."  What  is  re- 
quired in  the  Reformed  Church  everywhere  is  the 
maintenance  of  those  doctrines,  which  in  her  history, 
as  exhibited  in  her  Forms  of  Concord,  are  the  life  prin- 
ciples, not  necessarily  as  worked  out  dogmatically  by 
her  "subtle  theologians,  but  rather  as  God  manifests 
them  in  the  hearts  of  believers."  These  Forms  are  a 
matter  of  duty,  not  of  desire,  so  far  as  acceptance  is 
concerned;  but,  as  Van  Prinsterer  said,  "there  never 
was  in  the  Netherlands  Reformed  Church  a  strictness, 
bordering  on  the  absurd,  which  demanded  an  accept- 
ance in  every  particular,  or  none  at  all."  The  main 
principles  are  the  essence,  and  these  are  determined, 
not  by  the  arbitrary  mind  of  everybody  or  at  any  par- 
ticular time,  not  by  enemies,  but  by  the  believers,  as 
shown  in  the  Church's  history,  and  her  permanent 
Forms.  The  Church  can  exist  without  Forms,  which 
are  born  out  of  the  Church;  and  these  exist  for  the 
Church,  not  the  Church  for  the  Forms ;  while  the  truths 


WHAT      IS      A      REFORMED      CHURCH?  139 

therein  are  accepted  not  because  they  are  expressed  in 
the  Forms,  or  believed  by  others,  but  because  through 
the  centuries  God  has  revealed  them  to  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men  spiritually  enlightened  and  quali- 
fied to  give  the  sense  of  the  Word  to  the  rest  of  the 
church.  The  existence  of  truth  side  by  side  with  funda- 
mental error  in  a  church,  is  always  a  questionable 
matter;  but  to  permit  such  partnership  so  that  it  be- 
comes the  normal  condition  of  a  church,  is  not  permit- 
ted in  the  Reformed  Church. 

However,  error  that  does  not  touch  the  question  of 
salvation  is  not  necessarily  error,  and  during  times  of 
disturbance  in  the  Church,  this  becomes  a  puzzling 
question.  Almost  every  secession  has  led  to  the  disturb- 
ance of  the  equilibrium  of  doctrines.  For  example, 
after  the  secession  of  1834  in  old  Holland,  the  Seceders 
soon  became  bound  to  refight,  as  it  were,  the  fight  of 
1618,  with  the  Remonstrants,  thus  over  emphasizing 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  at  a  time  when  the  whole 
Gospel  truth  was  at  stake.  The  Synod  of  Dort  in  1618 
came  to  the  defense  of  the  confession  because  it  was 
attacked  along  the  lines  of  election,  and  hence  pro- 
duced the  Canons  of  Dort.  In  1834  and  later,  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformed  Church  were  all  attacked.  The 
divinity  of  Christ,  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for  sins, 
the  substitutionary  suffering  of  Christ,  were  all  com- 
batted  in  the  State  Church,  and  there  were  those  who 
claimed  that  the  worship  of  Christ  was  idolatry,  His 
death  for  others  was  a  blood-theology,  and  the  tenet  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  apostles  apostle  worship.  In  this 
conflict  the  Seceders  insisted  on  predestination  as  the 
only  real  mark  of  orthodoxy;  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  this  unbalancing  of  doctrines  is  attacked  by  a  pro- 
found student  like  Van  Prinsterer,  who  plainly  inti- 
mates that  as  long  as  there  is  conviction  of  inability 
and  depravity,  of  free  grace  and  of  the  need  of  renewal 
by  the  Spirit,  there  is  no  reason  to  exclude  any  one 
from  the  Reformed  Church.  Van  Prinsterer  did  not 
reject  the  Canons;  on  the  contrary,  he  said  of  the 
Forms  of  Concord  that  they  taught  unequivocally  the 


140  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

unconditional  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  reign  of 
God's  free  grace,  that  they  showed  the  real  source  of 
humility  and  thankfulness  to  be  that  the  origin  of  sal- 
vation was  not  in  our  own  merits,  but  in  the  grace  of 
God.  Van  Prinsterer  evidently  felt  that  the  Canons  of 
Dort  were  a  necessary  defense  in  1618,  but  that  later 
the  Canons  were  misused,  and  the  doctrine  of  election 
magnified  into  the  only  doctrine;  for  he  calls  the  Ca- 
nons "a  dialectic  development  (uiteenzetting)  in  which 
the  simple  and  unlearned  believer  need  not  be  initiated, 
a  theological  treatise  (tractaat)  which  may  well  re- 
main a  closed  book  for  them,  without  injury,  and  even 
to  their  profit, — Het  Regt,  etc.,  p.  59.  In  his  Brochure 
to  Van  Velzen,  p.  10,  Van  Prinsterer  intimated  that 
for  good  reasons  predestination  was  the  shibboleth  in 
1618,  but  that,  in  1834,  it  might  well  be  assigned  its 
subordinate  position.  He  saw  the  terrible  abuse  to 
which  the  doctrine  was  subjected  as  an  excuse  for  sin 
and  inactivity,  largely  through  the  emphasis  the  Ca- 
nons had  given  it,  even  though  the  Synod  of  Dort  had 
sounded  a  suitable  warning.  Van  Prinsterer  says,  in 
his  Anti-kritiek,  p.  18,  speaking  of  the  necessity  of  love 
as  well  as  of  hope,  "in  order  that  I  may  not  forget  that 
orthodoxy  alone  amounts  to  nothing,  I  quote  the  trench- 
ant words  of  Pascal,  *We  even  make  an  idol  of  the 
truth;  for  truth  without  love  is  not  God;  it  is  His 
image,  and  an  idol  which  we  may  neither  love  nor 
adore'." 

Van  Prinsterer,  who,  in  1837,  risked  his  official 
position  when  he  attacked  the  repressive  measures  of 
the  government  against  the  Seceders,  was  the  greatest 
investigator  of  what  was  Reformed  during  the  nine- 
teenth century.  He  carefully  sifted  these  matters,  and 
weighed  each  word,  so  that  he  became  recognized  as 
an  authority  by  all.  He  saw  that  the  weakness  of  the 
Dutch  secession  was  the  worship  of  doctrine  by  some, 
and  the  worship  of  the  Church  Rules  by  others,  and 
he  saw  aright  that  the  Seceders  were  not  entirely  on 
Reformed  grounds,  but  were  giving  free  reign  to  an- 
archy in  the  Church,  either  by  rejection  of  the  Forms 


WHAT      IS      A      REFORMED      CHURCH?  141 

and  Rules  as  did  Scholte  and  his  adherents,  or  by  over- 
emphasis on  doctrines  like  predestination,  or  on  Church 
Rules.  While  neither  of  those  elements  were  on 
strictly  Reformed  grounds,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
representatives  of  both  of  those  elements  later  in 
America,  carried  on  in  the  same  way  at  Pella,  la.,  and 
at  Noordeloos  and  Graafschap,  Mich.,  in  1857. 

A  Reformed  Church  is  one  that  accepts  the  Forms 
of  Concord  as  a  temporary  declaration  of  faith  by  the 
Church  of  Christ,  through  the  centuries,  under  the 
leadings  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  a  church  that  makes 
out  of  these  Forms  something  separate  and  indepen- 
dent, as  if  they  were  detached  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
makes  that  something  the  mark  of  the  only  true 
church;  and  in  addition  to  that,  assigns  five  reasons 
for  seceding  from  sister  churches  based  entirely  on 
points  of  mere  Church  Rules,  as  Graafschap  did  in 
1857, — whatever  she  may  have  been, — was  not  a  Re- 
formed Church,  according  to  the  Fathers.  She  was  a 
church,  as  some  of  the  discordant  elements  of  the 
Dutch  Seceders  after  1834  understood  a  church,  but 
when  she  pretended  to  set  up  her  own  manufactory 
of  true  church-marks  in  1857,  regardless  of  the  voice 
of  all  Reformed  Churches,  through  three  centuries,  and 
made  Church  Rules  the  indicia  of  orthodoxy  and  reg- 
ularity, she  was  off  the  Reformed  track,  and  was  side- 
tracked in  the  jungles  of  Labadism,  Independency, 
State  Churchism,  and  Romanism,  and  what  not! 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
of  the  East  was  not  influenced,  either  by  the  corrup- 
tions in  the  State  Church  or  by  the  anarchy  of  doctrine 
and  practice  in  the  seceded  churches  of  Holland;  and 
judging  by  her  Standards,  and  her  life  and  actions  as 
exhibited  in  her  synodic  acts  of  those  times,  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  of  the  East  together  with  the 
Classis  of  Holland  were  the  only  Reformed  Churches 
in  America,  while  the  Seceders  at  Noordeloos  and 
Graafschap  were  simply  the  offshoots  of  a  demoralized 
secession,  in  which  novelty  and  inexperience  must  form 
a  mantle  hiding  a  multitude  of  ecclesiastical  sins. 


142  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


X.    THE  SOUL  OF  THE  CHURCH 


IT  IS  NOW  important  to  ascertain  whether  this 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  with  such  glorious  cre- 
dentials from  the  heroic  Reformation  forefathers, 
lived  up  to  her  Standards  of  Dort  amid  the  changed 
conditions  in  the  New  World.  This  church  existed 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Classis  of  Amsterdam 
until  1792,  but  after  that  date  she  began  her  career 
as  an  independent  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  Just 
why  the  Protestant  churches  in  America,  like  the  Re- 
formed and  Episcopalians,  should  have  felt  it  neces- 
sary, when  the  Colonies  had  achieved  their  indepen- 
dence, to  assume  a  position  independent  of  the  mother 
churches  in  Europe,  while  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
in  America  remained  connected  with  Rome,  is  not 
clear. 

The  Fathers  of  Dort  affirmed  that  the  confession 
and  doctrines  of  a  church  must  be  ascertained,  not 
from  certain  individuals  or  leaders,  often  mischiev- 
ously misquoted,  but  from  the  authorized  declarations 
of  her  lawful  assemblies.  The  General  Synod  of  the 
Reformed  Church  in  America,  after  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  in  Holland  had  approved  the  segregation  of 
the  American  church,  and  had  bidden  her  Godspeed, 
became  the  highest  judicature  of  the  Church  in  Amer- 
ica; and  it  is  therefore  from  the  acts  of  this  General 
Synod  that  the  attitude  of  the  Church  on  all  questions 
involved,  must  be  obtained.  The  old  Standards  of 
Dort,  readopted  at  the  time  of  disjunction,  in  1792, 
served  as  the  Constitution,  and  the  subsequent  action 
of  the  General  Synod  will  show  whether  the  fathers  of 
the  Dutch  Church  in  the  East  understood  the  essen- 
tials of  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice. 


THE      SOUL      OF      THE      CHURCH  143 

During  the  immense  wave  of  Unitarianism  that 
swept  over  America  in  about  1820,  the  force  of  this 
movement  caused  some  ripples  in  the  Reformed  Church, 
in  the  form  of  disputes  about  the  difference  between 
the  natural  and  moral  powers  of  man,  and  about  em- 
phasizing the  doctrines  of  election  and  of  man's  re- 
sponsibility. These  disputes  resulted  in  the  small 
secession,  considered  in  other  chapters  of  this  work,  in 
which  the  stand  taken  by  the  General  Synod  appears 
as  being  correct  and  unimpeachable  from  the  stand- 
point of  Dort.  Beginning  in  1817,  the  Synod  con- 
demned the  raging  heresies  of  the  day  in  unmeasured 
terms,  and  declared  adherence  to  the  Standards  of  Dort, 
in  part,  even  in  the  very  words  of  Dort.  Nevertheless 
the  differences  of  opinion  as  to  preaching  Christ  pro- 
miscuously or  restrictedly,  etc.,  came  to  the  surface 
now  and  then,  so  that  the  Synod,  in  1834,  Minutes  p. 
350,  said,  "Occupying,  as  we  do,  a  place  of  happy  me- 
dium between  the  extremes  of  Arminianism,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Antinomianism,  on  the  other,  we  exalt 
the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  humble  the  pride  of  human 
sufficiency,  ascribing  the  individual  glory  of  salvation 
to  the  sovereignty  and  omnipotence  of  divine  grace, 
while  at  the  same  time  we  maintain  the  personal  and 
solemn  responsibilities  of  man,  press  the  obligation  of 
the  divine  law,  exhibit  the  motives  to  repentance  and 
holy  living,  absolve  the  throne  of  God  from  all  blame, 
and  present  the  whole  charge  of  transgression  at  the 
door  of  the  sinner's  heart  and  conscience." 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  state  correct  Reformed 
doctrine  on  this  tremendous  problem  of  predestination 
and  free  will  more  explicitly.  But  other  expressions  of 
the  General  Synod  are  as  noteworthy.  In  1831,  re- 
ferring in  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  cardinal  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  the  following  words  are  employed :  "lest 
the  great  landmarks  of  faith  be  removed,  and  the  power 
of  practical  and  vital  godliness  be  impaired,"  p.  380. 
In  1832,  p.  45,  the  state  of  the  church  is  not  "without 
alloy"  ;  "they  rejoice,  but  with  trembling."  "The  spirit 
of  the  age  is  excitement,  and  doctrines  long  embalmed 


144  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

in  the  affections  of  the  purest  part  of  Christ's  Church 
on  earth  are  ignored.  There  is  excitement  and  action 
without  regard  to  the  principles  whence  they  flow. 
Strong  religious  excitement  is  not  always  evidence  of 
the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit,"  etc.  In  1841,  Dr. 
Milledoler,  in  a  report,  complains,  "The  Deistical,  the 
Socinian,  the  Unitarian,  and  the  Universalist  carry  the 
war  into  the  enemy's  camp,  and  shall  we  alone  be  on 
the  defensive?"  In  1846,  p.  73,  the  doctrines  of  uni- 
versal salvation  advanced  in  the  books  of  the  school 
district  libraries,  and  other  doctrines  equally  at  war 
with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  condemned.  In  1849,  p. 
495,  "Christian  education  makes  our  church  as  the 
Garden  of  Eden  *  *  *.  Oh,  we  have  a  heritage,  a 
church  of  the  Reformation,  as  near,  we  verily  believe, 
as  any  other  church  of  that  glorious  era,  to  the  infal- 
lible oracles  of  God,  transmitted  to  us  through  the  piety, 
the  faithfulness,  the  very  martyrdom  of  our  fore- 
fathers. 'Peace  be  within  her  walls,  and  prosperity 
within  her  palaces'."  In  1854,  after  establishing  a 
Board  of  Publication,  and  calling  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  the  oldest  and  one  of  the  smallest  denomina- 
tions in  the  country,  this  Synod  speaks  of  her  as  fol- 
lows :  "Venerable  in  her  history,  pure  and  Calvinistic 
in  her  doctrine,  representative  in  her  policy,  and  har- 
monious in  her  operations,  she  may  well  claim  the 
united  regard  of  other  churches  and  the  world.  Linked 
by  association  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland, 
and  the  Synod  held  at  Dordrecht  in  1618-19,  what  de- 
nomination can  claim  a  more  honored  ancestry?  And 
what  better  apostolic  succession  need  we  desire  than 
to  have  a  place  in  a  church  which  has  been  handed 
down  from  those  sainted  men,  who,  though  dead,  still 
speak  ?  It  is  no  unwarranted  egotism,  therefore,  in  us, 
to  say,  that  we  honor,  respect,  and  love  that  church, 
which  for  centuries  has  stood  forth  amid  the  night  of 
error  and  delusion,  as  a  beacon  light  to  point  the  in- 
quiring to  the  way  of  life,  and  which,  like  Gibraltar 
itself,  in  the  midst  of  dissensions  and  defections,  which 
have  painfully  tried  other  churches,  has  always  re- 


THE      SOUL      OF      THE      CHURCH  145 

mained  true  to  her  Calvinistic  history,  and  unshaken 
in  her  support  of  the  distinctive  features  of  the  Prot- 
estant Reformation." 

In  1864,  referring  to  the  300th  anniversary  of 
Calvin's  death,  the  General  Synod  said,  "Three  cen- 
turies have  attested  the  truth  of  the  theological  sys- 
tem he  promulgated,  and  the  scripturalness  of  the  form 
of  church  government  he  established.  The  coming 
centuries  will  witness  increasing  multitudes  marching 
under  the  same  banner.  He  was  the  father  of  the  pub- 
lic school,  and  struck  the  fatal  blow  at  civil  and  re- 
ligious tyranny  by  unfolding  to  every  Christian  his  full 
personal  rights  and  duties  as  a  believer." 

The  above  declarations  of  the  General  Synod, 
selected  from  a  mass  of  similar  ones,  show  conclusive- 
ly, when  considered  with  the  strong  and  emphatic  con- 
demnations, in  1817-24,  of  the  Arminian  heresy,  and 
its  opposite,  Antinomianism,  that  the  General  Synod 
understood  the  "distinctive  features  of  the  Reforma- 
tion" and  of  Calvinism.  They  knew  the  history  of  their 
"Reformed  Zion,"  her  doctrines,  and  correct  practice; 
and  succeeding  chapters  will  show,  that  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  understood  her  pedigree,  her  marching 
orders  from  Christ,  the  chief  commander,  and  her 
duties  as  a  part  of  the  Church  Universal,  far  better 
than  the  one-sided  insurrectionists  who  broke  away  in 
1822. 

It  is  true,  in  such  declarations  of  the  Synod,  the 
leaders  of  the  Church  spoke.  But  is  not  the  highest 
assembly  of  the  church  the  mouthpiece  of  the  member- 
ship of  the  Church?  It  is  very  unsafe  to  judge  the 
spiritual  condition  of  a  church  from  the  statements  of 
a  few  members,  or  self-appointed  leaders,  or  from  her 
enemies.  If  either  the  western  branch  of  the  Re- 
formed Church,  or  the  Christian  Reformed  Church,  is 
judged  by  the  standard  of  intelligence  of  the  general 
run  of  individual  members,  there  is  no  danger  that 
wisdom  will  die  with  such  members.  The  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  must,  like  other  churches,  therefore,  be 


146  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

gauged  largely  by  her  Standards  and  Synodical  legis- 
lation. 

It  would  be  useless  here  to  multiply  quotations  from 
the  General  Synod  on  doctrines  and  other  questions, 
especially  from  those  of  the  later  sessions.  However, 
an  interesting  book  could  be  made  of  the  material  at 
hand, — particularly  on  the  subject  of  Christian  Mis- 
sions ;  for  on  that  subject  the  General  Synod  has  been 
eloquent,  sublimely  eloquent,  since  1830. 

Does  any  one  think  that  Paul,  Augustine,  Calvin 
and  Kuyper  would  not  gladly  have  stood  on  a  platform 
composed  of  planks  so  strong,  so  clear,  so  scriptural, 
as  those  contained  in  the  above  and  the  other  utter- 
ances of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church? 

These  quotations,  though  few,  are  fairly  represen- 
tative of  a  long  line  of  utterances  of  a  similar  nature; 
and  there  is  running  through  them  all  the  strongest 
evidence  of  the  consciousness  of  the  glorious  power  of 
her  "Calvinistic  history"  and  of  the  "distinctive  fea- 
tures of  the  Protestant  Reformation,"  to  which  this 
Church  endeavored  to  remain  true,  and  to  which  she 
tried  to  give  her  unshaken  support.  In  these  Synod 
utterances  we  discover  the  soul  of  the  Church  of  the 
Martyrs. 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's       HOUSE  147 


XL    POLICE  RULE  OF  GOD^S  HOUSE 


THESE  Reformed  Church  Orders,  or  Rules  of 
Church  Government,  about  which  there  was  so 
much  strife  and  confusion  among  the  Hollanders 
in  America  sixty  years  ago  and  later,  were  the  work 
of  several  synods,  held  from  1568  to  1619,  all  during 
the  Eighty  Years  War.  Except  as  changed  or  super- 
seded, the  rules  of  the  preceding  synods  remained,  and 
the  Church  in  Holland  always  inserted  in  its  Church 
Handbook,  the  Rules  adopted  in  all  these  synods. 

These  Rules  were  not  intended  as  a  proposal  to  be 
approved  later  on,  or  as  an  absolute  obligation  placed 
upon  the  churches,  but  were  conclusions  of  the  synods 
to  be  followed  as  much  as  possible  in  the  government 
of  the  churches.  At  Wesel,  1568,  during  Alva's  reign, 
when  the  Dutch  churches  were  scattered,  and  "Sitting 
under  the  Cross,"  the  synod  met  in  banishment,  and 
all  the  churches  were  not  represented.  But  at  Emden, 
1571,  they  had  all  been  consulted.  Marnix  especially 
insisted  on  the  Rules  as  valuable  in  promoting  unity 
in  the  churches,  and  also  for  their  effect  on  political 
unity.  All  the  churches  co-operated,  and  the  men  who 
composed  the  synod  had  been  authorized  and  sent,  and 
in  these  representatives  the  churches  themselves  were 
in  session  there.  This  authorization  by  the  local 
churches  is  really  the  foundation  of  the  power  of  all 
these  synods. 

The  Belgic  Confession  had  been  adopted  by  the  Re- 
formed Churches  in  1565,  and  the  churches  were  there- 
fore already  united  by  this  inner  bond  of  union,  upon 
which  the  outer  band  was  naturally  based.  Articles 
27-32  of  the  Confession,  referring  to  the  nature  of  the 
Church  Universal,  the  marks  of  the  true  and  the  false 


148  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

church,  the  necessity  of  joining  the  true  church  and 
to  the  nature  of  Church  government,  were  generally 
accepted.  And  it  was  therefore  agreed  that  there  was 
no  church  government  except  that  based  and  depen- 
dent on  the  Scriptures.  Within  this  limitation,  and 
therefore  with  Christ  as  its  only  Head,  all  power  was 
in  the  churches  themselves,  exercised  by  the  local  con- 
sistory, and  all  pastors  and  their  churches  were  on  an 
equality  with  others,  in  power  and  authority;  all  be- 
lievers were  members  of  the  Universal  Church,  and 
therefore  obliged,  as  much  as  possible,  by  their  acts  of 
union,  to  develop  the  unity  of  the  Universal  Church. 
The  right  to  make  church  rules  (Kerkorde),  it  is  evi- 
dent, was  therefore,  also  vested  in  the  local  consistory, 
within  the  limits  set  by  the  Bible,  and  therefore  also 
with  the  duty  of  conforming  as  much  as  necessary,  in 
the  use  of  the  rules,  with  other  churches,  in  order  to 
accentuate  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
Emden  Synod  assumed  no  powers  of  its  own,  but  it 
made  rules  for  the  government  of  the  churches,  be- 
cause all  the  churches  (every  local  church)  brought 
their  powers  together,  so  that  the  rules  were  made  by 
those  who  had  been  duly  authorized  by  each  local 
church.  The  Rules  were  valid  just  because  the  churches 
had  made  them  for  themselves. 

The  other  synods  followed  with  similar  powers,  and 
those  synods  did  not  establish  a  large  national  church, 
in  which  the  local  churches  had  been  merged  and  lost, 
with  a  General  Synod  as  supreme  with  a  new  power 
of  its  own.  On  the  contrary,  these  same  local  churches, 
through  the  action  of  their  consistories,  were  actually 
present,  and  gave  the  synods  their  only  powers.  The 
correctness  of  this  position  must  be  conceded,  for  it 
involves  the  correctness  of  the  underlying  principles 
of  the  whole  Reformation.  The  conferring  of  other 
powers  on  the  synods  would  have  created  a  new  pope. 
This  accounts  for  the  strictness  with  which  credentials 
of  synod  members  were  scrutinized ;  these  credentials 
contained  the  statement  that  the  representatives  were 
given  authority   (last  en  volmacht)   to  represent  the 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOB's      HOUSE  149 

churches  sending  them,  so  that  the  synod  was  not  a 
body  of  men  like  a  local  consistory,  but  a  gathering  of 
churches,  as  if  all  these  ^and  each  one  of  them),  were 
themselves    present.      The    presence    of    elders    was 
strenuously  insisted  on,  because  they  were  nearest  to 
the  local  churches.     Because  the  local  churches,  who 
alone  could  authorize  union  with  other  local  churches, 
were    present,    the    synod    could    make    and    alter 
church  rules.     No  other  right  was  consistent   with 
Reformation    principles.      The    local    churches    were 
the  center  of  all  power,  and  the  basic  rule  —  Art. 
36  of  the  Dort  Church  Rules — recognizes  the  differ- 
ence between  consistorial  and  synodical  powers,  when 
it  says  that  the  general  synod  has  the  same  jurisdiction 
over  a  particular  synod,  which  the  latter  has  over  a 
classis,  and  the  classis  has  over  a  consistory.    The  de- 
liberate omission  of  reference  to  the  powers  of  the  con- 
sistory over  a  local  church  in  said  Art.  36,  shows  that 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  consistory  is  of  an  entirely  differ- 
ent nature — a  nature  which  was  the  very  soul  of  the 
whole  Reformation,  of  the  Netherlands  Confession,  and 
of  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches.    To  get  rid 
of  the  big  book  of  church  laws  of  the  Romish  Church, 
and  of  the  lordship  of  bishops  and  cardinals  and  popes 
and  councils,  and  to  restore  direct  access  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, was  the  object  of  the  Reformation.    To  restore 
the  pure  liberty  of  the  individual  believer  given  him 
by  Christ,  and  to  restore  the  liberties  of  the  local 
churches  from  the  bondage  of  an  oppressive  hierarchy 
and  the  mass  of  Church  Rules  was  the  work  of  the 
Reformers.     And  to  constitute   a   general   synod   or 
classis,  supreme  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  would  have 
been  the  substitution  of  one  pope  for  another.    Synods 
and  Classis  have  no  jurisdiction  whatever  except  that 
freely  conferred  by  independent  local  churches  for 
common  purposes. 

The  above  facts  have  been  gathered  from  a  little 
work  by  Prof.  F.  L.  Rutgers,  of  the  Free  University 
of  Amsterdam,  entitled,  "De  Geldigheid  van  de  Oude 
Kerkenordening,"  written  in  1889,  during  the  Dole- 


150  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

antie  movement  in  the  Netherlands.  Rutgers,  the  col- 
league of  Profs.  Kuyper  and  Hoedemaker,  based  his 
book  on  the  writings  of  Reformed  Fathers,  beginning 
with  the  Synod  of  Wesel,  He  also  quotes,  not  from 
Voetius,  but  from  a  younger  contemporary  of  Voetius, 
Prof.  Hoornbeek  of  Ley  den,  the  following  just  re- 
marks on  the  relation  of  local  churches  and  synods: 

"The  word  dependence  (dependentie)  cannot  be 
used  to  describe  the  relation  of  local  churches  to  synods. 
For  it  must  not  be  thought  that  the  particular  local 
church  derives  its  power  from  a  higher  body,  whether 
church  or  synod,  or  that  a  local  church,  in  coming  into 
a  synod,  resigns  its  power  in  favor  of  the  synod.  Such 
is  not  the  case.  The  usage  or  powers  of  synods  cannot, 
and  must  not,  in  any  way  do  violence  to  the  freedom 
and  powers  of  local  churches ;  the  power  of  synods  has 
not  a  depriving  but  a  uniting  character,  and  every 
local  church  remains  in  its  independent  possession  of 
complete  ecclesiastical  power.  Synods  do  not,  more- 
over, assume  mandatory  (verbiedende)  powers  over 
the  churches  composing  them,  like  superior  public  of- 
ficers have  over  their  inferiors,  but  a  synod,  resulting 
from  the  united  and  free  agreement  of  the  churches, 
has  a  power  conferred  on  it  by  the  local  churches, 
which  is  of  a  serving,  helping  nature,  while  said 
churches  submit  themselves  willingly,  because  good 
order  and  edification  demand  it. 

"This  relation  of  churches  can  therefore  not  be 
called  'dependent,'  and  in  relation  to  the  sect  referred 
to  (Brownists),  the  word  Independentism  is  not  ap- 
propriate, for,  in  a  better  sense,  it  may  be  said  that 
a  particular  church  is  independent  of  another  like 
church,  or  of  synods,  or  of  men,  but  that  she  is  depen- 
dent upon  Christ.  The  proper  word  is  really  'submis- 
sion,' because  it  is  the  result  of  the  common  consent  to 
submit,  in  order  to  promote  the  edification  and  wel- 
fare of  the  Church.  When  a  synod  acquires  jurisdic- 
tion over  churches,  these  churches  are  not  changed; 
present  at  the  synod  by  their  representatives,  they  are 
the  same  local  churches,  which  submit  their  common 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD  S      HOUSE  151 

concerns  to  the  synod,  in  every  respect  by  a  voluntary 
and  reciprocal  submission.  The  synod,  moreover,  does 
not  put  its  sickle  into  a  strange  grainfield  (vreemd 
korenveld)  ;  but  by  means  of  synods  the  united  powers 
of  the  churches  watch  over,  and  provide  jointly  for 
the  welfare  of  those  same  churches." 

The  Rules  made  by  the  several  synods  all  contained 
provisions  for  amendment  and  alteration.  The  last 
article  of  the  Rules  of  Dort  states  that  "these  articles 
have  been  adopted  by  common  consent  (gemeen 
accoord)  in  such  manner,  that  if  the  interest  (profijt) 
of  the  church  should  require  it,  they  may  be,  and  ought 
to  be  altered,  enlarged  or  diminished."  The  reason 
such  changes  were  required  to  be  made  not  by  a  lower 
body  or  by  one  church,  but  by  a  general  or  national 
synod,  is  that  these  rules,  subject  to  the  Scriptural 
Liberties,  were  made  to  be  used  by  all  the  churches  as 
much  as  possible,  that  is  to  say  by  each  local  church 
and  by  all  of  them.  When  a  local  church  or  a  classis 
undertakes  to  change  these  rules,  the  other  churches 
in  the  denomination  are  not  represented,  and  cannot 
•therefore  be  bound.  All  the  churches  can  be  bound 
only  when  present,  and  that  is  only  possible  in  a  gen- 
eral or  national  synod. 

Of  course  these  Rules  were  binding  not  only  on 
those  who  made  them,  but  also  on  those  who  later  ac- 
cepted them,  either  by  express  declaration  or  act  of 
joining.  If  a  church  did  not  assist,  accept,  or  join,  or 
adopted  a  radically  different  and  antagonistic  set  of 
Church  Rules,  it  was  outside  the  organization,  and  it 
violated  the  fundamental  duty  of  giving  expression  to 
the  oneness  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  as  much  as  was 
in  its  power,  when  it  assumed  a  standpoint  so  differ- 
ent from  that  of  other  churches. 

The  adoption  of  the  Rules  of  Church  Government 
by  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  Netherlands  during 
the  revolt  from  the  Rules  of  Rome  and  the  despotism 
of  Spain,  aroused  the  intense  jealousy  of  the  people  who 
were  then  going  through  great  tribulation  to  free  them- 
selves from  the  yoke  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  tyranny ; 


152  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  to  allay  this  feeling,  and  to  silence  criticism,  the 
fathers  at  the  time  the  Synod  of  Wesel  added  to  their 
Rules  a  Voorreden  (Introduction  to  the  Christian 
Reader)  which  explains  fully  the  necessity  of  such 
rules  by  copious  references  to  the  history  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  and  to  the  synods  and  councils ;  but  they 
were  careful  to  make  the  distinction  between  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  laws  and  their  own  simple 
Church  Rules  very  plain.  This  Voorreden  of  about  25 
pages  says  that  civil  governments  punish  offenders, 
sometimes  with  the  death  penalty,  while  churches  in- 
flict as  their  extreme  penalty,  in  cases  of  offenses,  only 
excommunication,  which,  as  in  Matt.  18:17,  is  simply 
holding  the  offender  as  "a  heathen  man  and  a  publi- 
can" ;  that  Christ  left  His  Word  as  a  guide  and  rule  for 
His  Church  to  live  by  without  lordship  over  others; 
that  rules,  however,  are  necessary  to  pure  doctrine  and 
to  regulate  church  services,  to  keep  good  order  and  to 
prevent  "divisions  and  offenses,"  Rom.  16  (verwar- 
ringen  en  ergernissen)  ;  that  the  churches  noticed  early 
that  many  features  of  the  sacraments,  etc.,  were  not 
prescribed  in  the  Scriptures,  but  that  the  peace  and 
edification  of  believers  required  decisions,  so  that  sy- 
nods were  from  time  to  time  called,  and  later  periodi- 
cally, mainly  to  prevent  schisms  and  false  doctrine; 
that  the  Apostles  who  could  not  err  held  several  such 
meetings,  and  that  it  is  more  necessary  to  have  such 
meetings  now  when  there  are  no  such  inspired  men  to 
pass  on  matters  on  which  the  Bible  is  silent ;  that  many 
questions  not  explained  in  the  Scriptures  require  some 
uniform  rule  of  action,  so  as  to  prevent  divisions,  and 
that  synods  and  classis  are  therefore  necessary,  I  Cor. 
14:40,  'Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order,' 
and  Phil.  4 :8,  'Whatsoever  things  are  true,  honest,  just, 
pure,  lovely,  of  good  report,  think  on  these  things.' 

"Concerning  the  rules,"  the  Voorreden  continue, 
"made  by  churches,  and  for  which  there  is  no  command 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  Reformed  Church  has,  so  far, 
taught  that  since  Christ  has  released  Christians  from 
the  yoke  of  ecclesiastical  ceremonies,  consisting  of  dif- 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's      HOUSE  153 

ference  in  meats,  observance  of  feast  days,  etc.,  no  one 
can  impose  another  yoke  upon  them.  Let  no  man 
therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of 
a  holy-day  [feest-day],  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the 
Sabbath-days,  Col.  2:16,  since  they  in  things  indiffer- 
ent have  received  freedom  of  Christ,  and  religion  does 
not  consist  thereof,  I  Cor.  8 :8.  It  is  also  well-known 
(kennelijk)  that  the  Reformed  Church  has  always  op- 
posed popery,  which  teaches  that  the  consciences  of 
men  are  bound  by  the  commands  of  the  church  as  well 
as  by  those  of  God,  that  the  church's  orders  are  as 
essential  to  salvation  as  God's  commands,  and  that  re- 
ligion consists  in  obeying  the  church  institutions  as 
well  as  in  keeping  God's  laws.  The  Reformed  Church 
has  proved  out  of  the  Scriptures,  and  maintained  that 
no  church  enactments  (inzettingen)  can  bind  men's 
consciences  except  God's  laws,  that  no  church  laws  are 
essential  to  salvation,  and  that  no  holiness  or  piety  can 
be  found  in  them,  nor  must  be  sought  therein;  but 
that  rules  are  considered  necessary  for  the  public  ser- 
vices conducted  in  churches,  and  for  the  government 
of  the  visible  church,  and  to  prevent  divisions  and  of- 
fenses, so  that  all  things  may  be  done  decently  and  in 
order ;  in  this  way,  that  when  any  one  violates  a  church 
law,  without  committing  or  intending  an  offense  or 
division,  while  he  has  observed  the  inner  service  com- 
manded in  the  first  table  of  the  law,  the  Reformed 
Church  holds  that  he  has  not  defiled  his  conscience,  for 
he  did  not  sin  against  the  object  of  the  law ;  which  is  to 
prevent  divisions  and  offenses  in  the  outward  religious 
service.  What  reason  is  there,  then,  for  criticism  of 
the  Reformed  Churches?" 

This  Introduction  written  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Wesel  has  been  published  with  the  Rules  adopted 
by  every  succeeding  synod,  including  that  of  Dort,  and 
has  always  been  considered  binding  by  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  the  Netherlands.  This  latitude  in  things 
indifferent  is  rather  strikin-g,  for  these  synods  often 
reversed  the  decisions  of  other  synods,  e.  g.,  two  of 
the  synods  forbade  the  use  of  organs  in  church  services, 


154  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

while  the  Synod  of  Dort  did  not  forbid;  the  synod  of 
1574  forbade  feast  days,  while  Dort  approved  them. 
These  changes,  as  we  know,  were  due  to  actual  condi- 
tions in  the  churches  at  these  particular  times,  showing 
that  the  fathers  were  not  afraid  to  change  the  Rules 
when  circumstances  demanded  it.  The  Rules  were  in- 
tended to  assist  the  Confession  in  giving  expression  to 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  being  designed  for  the 
external  life  of  the  churches,  were,  particularly  "in 
things  indifferent,"  or  in  matters  not  specifically  pre- 
scribed in  the  Bible,  a  matter  of  compromise,  and  hence, 
too,  often  deviations  from  the  rules  were  allowed  in  the 
Dutch  churches,  since  sometimes,  by  deviating,  a 
greater  error  or  detriment  could  be  avoided  than  by 
adhering  to  the  rules,  and  the  rule  finally  became,  in 
such  cases,  'What  is  heaviest,  must  weigh  the  heaviest' 
(Wat  het  zwaarste  was,  moest  ook  het  zwaarste  we- 
gen).  Of  course,  the  Rules  were  based  on  unity  of 
doctrine,  and  without  this  inner  bond  of  unity  all  rules 
would  have  been  useless.  Such  unity  of  doctrine  must 
be  based  on  the  Infallible  Word,  and  hence  an  appeal 
from  the  Rules,  and  even  from  the  Confession,  was  and 
is  always  in  order.  If  this  were  not  so,  Church  Rules 
and  Confessions  written  and  made  by  men,  instead  of 
God's  Word,  would  be  the  supreme  law  in  the  Church, 
which  is  Roman  Catholic,  not  Reformed,  doctrine. 

The  current  belief  that  the  Synod  of  Dort  (1618- 
19)  intended  to  make  Church  Rules,  just  like  a  Form 
of  Concord,  for  all  the  churches  represented  in  that 
Synod,  from  the  Continent  and  Great  Britain,  is  erro- 
neous ;  for  that  Synod  never  began  the  consideration  of 
Church  Rules  until  the  13th  day  of  May,  1619,  when 
the  foreign  delegates  had  already  withdrawn.  It  was 
therefore  only  as  the  National  Synod  for  the  Churches 
of  Holland  that  this  Synod  adopted,  on  May  28, 
1619,  the  eighty-six  articles  known  as  the  "Rules  of 
Dort." 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  in  Holland, 
and  in  spite  of  the  Rules  adopted  by  the  different  sy- 
nods since  Wesel,  there  were  several  different  sets  of 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's      HOUSE  155 

Rules  in  use  in  the  Netherland  Churches,  and  this  fact 
was  adverted  to  by  Dort,  with  the  admission  that  these 
different  sets  of  Rules  were  nevertheless  largely  sim- 
ilar to  Dort's  own  new  Rules,  especially  "where  prin- 
ciples were  involved."  But  Dort,  for  the  sake  of  ob- 
taining greater  uniformity,  in  an  Address  to  the  States 
General,  requested  the  general  application  of  her  Rules 
in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Netherlands,  and  made  lib- 
eral use  of  such  terms  as  "approve,"  "confirm,"  "sanc- 
tion," "strengthen,"  "authorize,"  "to  maintain  them 
[the  new  Rules]  as  far  as  possible"  (Zoo  veel  zulks 
geschieden  kan),  and  "so  that  they  may  have,  in  the 
churches,  the  powers  of  a  public  statute." 

This  approval,  etc.,  so  fondly  desired  by  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  was  given  by  the  States  of  Overijsel,  without 
conditions,  by  the  States  of  Gelderland  and  Utrecht, 
with  unimportant  reservations,  but  never  by  any  of  the 
other  provinces  or  by  the  States  General.  However, 
the  Rules  in  the  Dutch  churches  were  so  similar  to 
those  of  Dort,  and  Dort  in  her  Post-Acta,  adopted  in 
sessions  155-180,  May  13  to  May  29,  1619,  further  so 
explained  and  modified  the  application  of  her  new 
Rules  to  the  circumstances  in  other  churches,  that  in 
course  of  time  the  expression  "Church  Orders  of  Dort" 
expressed  very  well  the  general  "spirit  and  tendency 
of  the  Fathers"  in  Holland.  There  was  considerable 
contention  about  Rules  in  the  Netherlands,  until  the 
French  Revolution  and  conquest  of  Holland,  brought 
in  an  entirely  new  system.  But  in  1792,  when,  a  few 
years  before  the  loss  of  Holland's  independence,  the 
American  Dutch  Churches  became  independent,  the 
situation  was  as  above  indicated, — several  different 
sets  of  Rules  in  use  with  the  Rules  of  Dort  as  general 
landmarks  only  in  the  whole  body  of  the  Reformed 
system  of  Church  government. 

The  Reformed  churches  in  New  York  and  New  Jer- 
sey, planted  in  about  1620,  were  a  part  of  the  Reformed 
Church  in  the  Netherlands,  and  had  the  same  Stan- 
dards of  Faith,  and  the  same  Rules  of  government, 
till  they  finally,  in  1792,  became  independent.     All  of 


156  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  officers  and  pastors  of  these  churches  had  the  same 
Church  Handbooks  in  the  same  language,  as  the  officers 
and  pastors  in  the  Netherlands.  In  fact,  without  ex- 
ception, all  the  ministers  in  the  New  York  and  Jersey 
Churches  read  and  spoke  the  Dutch  language.  Almost 
without  exception  they  preached  in  the  Dutch  language 
as  late  as  1810.  These  churches  were  the  Reformed 
Church  of  the  Netherlands,  as  much  as  any  church  in 
old  Holland.  The  religious  literature  of  these  churches 
was  that  of  Holland,  and  the  glorious  history  of  the 
Martyr  Church  was  their  possession ;  its  theology  was 
theirs — only  the  Atlantic  lay  between.  When,  in  1792, 
these  Churches  became  independent  of  the  Church  in 
Holland,  and  it  was  felt  that  the  English  language 
would  prevail,  they  re-adopted,  and  translated  into 
English,  the  Standards  and  Rules  of  Dort.  In  the  pref- 
ace to  their  Handbook,  called  the  Constitution  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  we  find  at  the  beginning  the 
following  characteristic  phrase:  "The  unerring  Word 
of  God  remaining  the  only  standard  of  Faith  and  Wor- 
ship of  His  people."  In  that  preface  are  the  further 
statements  that  this  Constitution  contains  the  Doc- 
trines, Mode  of  Worship,  and  Government  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  in  America,  and  that  these  are 
as  follows:  (1)  The  doctrines  comprised  in  the  Ar- 
ticles of  Faith,  the  Catechism  and  Compendium,  and 
her  Canons;  (2)  The  Mode  of  Worship  is  in  general 
terms  prescribed  in  the  Liturgy;  and,  (3)  "The  gov- 
ernment and  discipline  are  contained  in  the  Rules  of 
Church  Government,  ratified  in  the  last  National  Sy- 
nod held  at  Dordrecht;  these  are  illustrated  in  the 
Explanatory  Articles,  and  applied  to  the  circumstances 
and  local  situation  of  the  Church.  Whatever  relates 
to  the  immediate  authority  and  interposition  of  the 
Magistrate  in  the  government  of  the  church,  more  or 
less  introduced  into  European  churches,  is  entirely 
omitted  in  this  Constitution." 

The  Preface  to  the  Explanatory  Articles  adopted  by 
the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  in  1792,  reflects  the 
prevailing  system  of  the  Churches  of  Dort,  as  the  fol- 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD'S      HOUSE  157 

lowing  quotations  completely  show:  "The  Rules  of 
Dort,  which  express  the  general  principles  of  ecclesi- 
astical government  adopted  by  all  Reformed  Churches 
[in  the  Netherlands],  were  by  the  delegates  of  the 
United  Netherlands,  explained  and  more  fully  applied 
to  their  local  circumstances,  in  certain  acts  which  were 
styled  the  Post-Acta  Synodi  Nationalis."  The  Re- 
formed Church  in  America  "have  always  applied  (Dis- 
cipline, etc.)  in  the  same  way,  so  far  as  their  number 
and  circumstances  would  permit,  as  was  declared  in 
1771."  "Therefore  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  in  America,  held  at  New  York  in  Oct., 
1792,  have  caused  the  practice  of  their  church  to  be 
comprised  in  the  following  Explanatory  Article  [73  in 
number],  agreeably  to  which,  the  Rules  of  Church 
Government  of  said  National  Synod  of  Dordrecht,  are 
applied  and  executed."  At  the  conclusion  of  these  Ex- 
planatory Articles,  the  committee,  consisting  of  Revs. 
Solomon  Fraeligh,  Basset,  and  Stryker,  declared  that 
"these  articles  contain  the  principal  outlines  of  the 
practice  of  their  Church,  agreeably  to  which  the  ecclesi- 
astical ordinances  of  the  National  Synod  held  at  Dord- 
recht in  the  years  1618  and  1619,  and  which  were  sol- 
emnly and  formally  recognized  and  adopted  at  the  con- 
vention held  in  New  York  in  the  year  1771,  are  pro- 
ceeded upon  and  executed."  The  same  committee  says, 
"these  articles  are  also  to  be  considered  subject  to 
such  additional  explanations  and  alterations  as  shall 
be  found  necessary  to  throw  light  upon  any  article  of 
Dort,  or  to  remove  any  doubt  or  difficulty." 

This  does  not  show  any  "unconditional  acceptance 
of  the  Rules  of  Dort,"  either  in  the  Netherlands  before 
1792,  or  in  the  American  Reformed  Churches  before 
or  after  said  date.  The  idea  of  the  "unconditional 
acceptance  of  the  Rules  of  Dort"  is  a  myth  invented 
years  later  among  the  Hollanders  in  Michigan. 

The  fathers  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  at  once 
used  the  liberty  Christ  gave  them,  in  the  sense  the 
fathers  of  Dort  intended  it  to  be  used,  when  they  con- 
cluded that  whenever  the  interest  of  the  churches  re- 


158  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

quired  it,  they  ought  to  change  the  Rules.    And  they 
did. 

During  1795-1813,  the  Church  in  Holland  was  al- 
most ruined  by  the  beneficence  of  Napoleon  and  the 
Age  of  Reason,  and  when  Holland  regained  its  inde- 
pendence, King  William,  in  1816  with  good  intention, 
no  doubt,  with  one  stroke  of  the  pen,  imposed  on 
the  Dutch  church  a  body  of  Rules  made  by  his  cabinet. 
The  church,  therefore,  got  Rules  made  by  King  Wil- 
liam instead  of  by  themselves.  A  synod  appointed  by 
the  King  was  imposed  upon  them  without  consulting 
them,  so  that  a  hierarchy  took  the  place  of  Dort.  Wil- 
liam came  back  from  Germany  and  England,  and  tried 
to  episcopalize  the  Churches,  thus  tearing  up  by  the 
roots  the  autonomy  of  local  churches,  the  derivative 
powers  of  synods,  and  the  liberty  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment churches.  The  Churches  received  Rules  not  made 
by  themselves,  but  by  the  Government,  and  these  Rules 
were  now  fully  elevated  into  the  position  of  public  laws 
of  the  State.  This  made  the  Church  a  State  machine, 
and  the  clergymen  practically  State  officers.  These 
brand-new  Rules  forbade  correspondence  with  foreign 
churches  without  the  consent  of  the  king.  They  re- 
quired the  appointment  of  the  first  synod  by  the  king, 
declared  that  no  resolutions  were  valid  without  the 
king's  approval,  and  required  that  the  meetings  of  the 
synod  be  attended  by  the  Minister  of  Public  Worship, 
or  by  civil  commissioners.  With  this  man-made  code, 
and  this  nationalized  Church,  in  which  every  body,  ra- 
tionalists and  atheists  included,  had  a  share,  it  soon 
became  apparent  that  a  radical  departure  from  the 
heroic  Church  of  the  Fatherland  had  been  initiated. 
'The  very  first  synod  called  in  1816,  responded  to  the 
liberals.  The  old  Formula  adopted  by  the  churches 
of  Dort  bound  clergymen  to  the  venerable  Forms  of 
Concord  as  follows:  "We  testify  that  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  and  the  Confession  of  the  Netherlands 
Church,  as  also  the  Canons  of  the  National  Synod  of 
Dordrecht,  held  in  the  years  1618  and  1619,  "are  fully 
conformable  to  the  Word  of  God"  (in  alles  met  God's 
Woord  overeenkomen),       *     *     *       "and  will  teach 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's      HOUSE  159 

and  defend  the  doctrines"  *  *  *  "established  in 
the  Standards  aforesaid."  The  new  Synod  of  1816 
changed  this  Formula  to  read  as  follows :  "That  we  in 
good  faith  and  heartily  believe  the  doctrines,  which  in 
conformity  with  God's  Holy  Word,  are  contained  in 
the  accepted  Forms  of  Concord  of  the  Netherlands  Re- 
formed Church"  (Dat  wij  de  leer,  welke  overeenkom- 
stig  Gods  Heilig  Woord  in  de  aangenomen  formulieren 
van  Eenigheid  der  Ned.  Herv.  Kerk  is  vervat,  ter  goe- 
der  trouw  aannemen  en  hartelijk  gelooven) .  Under  this 
changed  phraseology,  ambiguous  to  some  extent,  the 
liberals  held  the  old  Forms  of  Concord  no  longer  bind- 
ing because  they  were  "fully  conformable"  to  the  Word 
of  God,  but  in  so  far  as  they  were  in  conformity  with 
the  Word.  This  difference  led  to  a  great  controversy 
in  the  Churches  of  Holland,  known  as  the  Quia  and 
Quatenus  Question.  The  word  quia,  applied  to  the 
Forms  meant  because  they  were  in  conformity,  while 
the  word  quatenus  meant  in  so  far  as  they  are  in  con- 
formity with  the  Word.  The  orthodox  party  sought  to 
maintain  Quia,  while  the  liberals  at  once  made  use  of 
the  Quatenus,  as  developments  showed. 

This  unfortunate  change,  it  is  evident,  freed  clergy- 
men from  adhering  to  the  Scriptures  as  reflected  in 
the  Creed  of  the  church,  and  opened  the  way  for  their 
rationalistic  Bible  interpretation  to  explain  the  Creed. 
The  government,  non-sectarian  and  non-religious,  re- 
sponded to  the  liberalism  of  the  French  Revolution, 
and  the  State  Church  did  likewise,  until  in  1834,  after 
years  of  agitation,  the  orthodox  people  broke  out  in 
open  secession,  and  raised  against  the  Standards  of 
Dort.  After  much  strife  the  secessionists  re-adopted, 
in  1840,  the  old  Church  Rules,  Voorreden  and  all,  in 
the  sense  of  the  Martyr  Churches.  When  Dr.  Van 
Raalte  and  his  colonists  went  to  America  six  years  later, 
they  brought  with  them  the  same  Rules,  and  when  or- 
ganized churcli  life  was  resumed  by  these  few  scat- 
tered Dutch  churches  in  western  Michigan,  at  their 
first  Classis  Meeting,  April,  1848,  they  adopted  the  old 


160  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Standards  of  the  Netherlands  Churches  and  the  Rules 
of  Church  Government  from  Wesel  to  Dort,  even  quot- 
ing in  full  the  last  two  pages  of  the  Voorreden  of  the 
Fathers  of  Wesel,  showing  that  church  rules  are  de- 
signed not  to  be  worshipped,  but  to  be  used,  and 
changed  as  the  interest  of  the  churches  may  require. 

The  brethren  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  East 
had  in  1792,  adopted,  or  rather  re-declared,  the  same 
Standards  and  the  same  Church  Rules,  and  in  the  same 
spirit  of  the  Fathers  of  Wesel,  as  the  changes  they 
made  by  their  Explanatory  Articles  prove.  In  fact 
the  Reformed  churches  of  New  York  and  Jersey  were 
about  the  only  churches  in  the  world  from  1795  till 
1834,  that  preserved  the  Standards  and  Rules  of  Dort. 
Art.  32  of  the  Confession,  be  it  remembered,  recognizes 
the  right  of  rulers  of  the  church  to  "institute  and  es- 
tablish certain  ordinances  [Church  Rules]  among 
themselves  for  maintaining  the  body  of  the  church; 
yet  [warns  that]  they  ought  studiously  to  take  care, 
that  they  do  not  depart  from  those  things  which 
Christ,  our  only  Master,  hath  instituted."  It  pro- 
ceeds to  say — "And  therefore  we  reject  all  human  in- 
ventions, and  all  laws,  which  man  would  introduce  into 
the  worship  of  God,  thereby  to  bind  and  compel  the 
conscience,  in  any  manner  whatever.  Therefore  we 
admit  only  of  that,  which  tends  to  nourish  and  pre- 
serve concord  and  unity,  and  to  keep  all  men  in  obedi- 
ence to  God.  For  this  purpose,  excommunication  or 
church  discipline  is  requisite,  with  the  several  circum- 
stances belonging  to  it  according  to  the  Word  of  God." 

With  such  a  provision  in  the  Reformed  Confession 
itself,  the  appeal  is  always  to  the  Scriptures,  in  all 
things  including  Confessions  and  Rules ;  so  that  in  mat- 
ters of  religious  instruction,  in  the  use  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  the  like,  there  is  considerable  latitude  as  to 
means  and  details,  in  order  that  the  conscience  may 
not  be  bound  and  compelled  "in  any  manner  whatso- 
ever." This  is  the  grand  doctrine  of  Dort,  of  Calvin, 
and  of  the  early  Christian  Church  alike.    In  fact,  Cal- 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD  S      HOUSE  161 

vin  says  that  certain  features  of  church  government 
were  "introduced  by  human  agreement  on  account  of 
the  necessity  of  the  times,"  and  "by  custom  rather 
than  by  appointment  of  the  Lord,"  Institutes  Vol.  2,  p. 
273.  In  his  tenth  chapter  of  said  volume  he  explains 
these  church  rules  fully,  and  says  that  some  of  those 
laws  are  based  upon,  and  deduced  from  the  Scriptures, 
while  the  others  are  for  edification,  suited  to  circum- 
stances and  times  as  required,  with  the  right  to  change 
or  abolish  or  to  make  new  ones,  not  rashly,  frequently 
or  for  trivial  causes ;  they  are  not  fixed  and  perpetual, 
but  only  external  aids  to  human  infirmity;  these  laws 
must  be  judged  by  their  objects,  which  are  sometimes 
temporary ;  they  may  not  bind  believers  when  they  im- 
pose as  necessary  things  which  are  indifferent  and  left 
free  by  God,  and  it  is  grievous  error  to  despise,  con- 
demn, and  reject  another  on  account  of  things  left  free 
by  the  Lord,  and  to  claim  them  necessary  to  salvation 
and  essential  to  piety.  Calvin  also  says  such  man-made 
rules  ought  not  to  be  violated,  because  not  divine,  but 
that  the  customs  and  laws  of  a  country,  the  dictates  of 
modesty,  and  decorum  will  lead  the  way.  The  believer 
retains  the  liberty  given  by  Christ,  but  he  must  vol- 
untarily put  some  restraint  on  his  liberty  for  the  sake 
of  decorum  and  charity,  decency  and  order,  and  en- 
deavor "to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of 
peace." 

It  is  necessary  to  state  here,  that  the  Seceders  from 
the  Reformed  Church  in  1822,  were  not  so  wrong  in 
their  conception  of  Church  Rules  as  the  Seceders  in 
Michigan  were.  The  Synod  of  the  True  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  or  what  was  left  of  it,  in  1828,  showed 
Minutes  p.  14,  with  as  fine  a  contempt  for  the  rules 
of  rhetoric  as  for  the  strict  construction  of  Church 
Rules,  that  it  was  nearly  right  when  it  spoke  as  fol- 
lows :  "It  was  the  object  of  the  Synod  [of  Dort]  by 
the  adoption  of  the  rules  to  preserve  uniformity  in  the 
discipline  and  government  of  the  Netherlands  churches, 
as  far  as  possible — as  far  as  the  condition  of  these 
churches,  in  their  respective  provinces  would  allow. 


162  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  therefore  to  serve  as  a  general  landmark  by  which 
to  abide ;  also  as  the  National  Synod,  in  their  Post  Acta, 
did  point  out,  in  several  articles,  or  instances,  the  ac- 
commodation of  these  general  rules  to  particular  locali- 
ties and  cases;  and  the  convention  of  1792  in  this 
country  did  on  the  same  principle,  and  with  the  same 
views  explain  in  a  number  of  Articles,  the  application 
of  these  rules  to  the  situation  and  wants  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  in  North  America." 

On  p.  12  of  the  same  minutes  of  1828,  the  True  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  criticized  the  Synod  of  Dort  for 
admitting  a  profane  mixture  of  Church  and  State,  the 
power  of  the  magistrate,  etc.,  and  they  say,  "also  ad- 
mitted into  their  constitution  the  *Jus  Patronatus,'  or 
the  right  of  the  patron  (patroon)  to  present  a  minis- 
ter to  a  living  in  his  gift  as  Lord  of  the  Wyck;  to 
which,  omitting  a  few  other  things,  may  be  added  Feest 
or  Holydays,  which,  although  observed  without  scrip- 
tural authority,  however,  by  some  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians, were  corrupted  by  popery  and  can  only  be  con- 
.  sidered  as  inventions  of  man,  and  a  species  of  idolatry." 

It  is  singular  that  the  Seceders  of  1822  ignored  the 
fact  that  this  mixture  of  church  and  state  was  really 
forced  on  the  Synod  by  the  States  General  and  much 
against  her  wishes.  But  what  is  more  singular  still, 
is  that,  while  the  remnant  of  these  Eastern  Seceders 
were  nearly  correct  as  to  the  scope  of  church  rules,  and 
considered  feast  days  as  a  species  of  idolatry,  the  West- 
ern Seceders  of  1857  committed  idolatry  as  to  both 
church  rules  and  feast  days,  while  following  the  East- 
ern Seceders  in  claims  of  purity  of  doctrine  only.  The 
Western  Seceders  in  1857  were  really  ignorant  as  to 
the  history  of  the  True  Dutch,  or  Secession,  Church  in 
the  East,  except  as  to  what  appeared  in  the  addresses 
of  1822  and  1824. 

The  Seceders  of  1834,  in  the  Netherlands,  in  their 
Synod  at  Utrecht,  in  1837,  prepared  and  adopted  new 
church  rules.  But  these  rules  were  rejected  by  many, 
and  the  whole  secession  church  got  into  the  greatest 
disorder;  so  that  in  1840,  they  re-adopted  the  Rules 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's      HOUSE  163 

of  Dort  with  the  Rules  of  preceding  synods,  as  already- 
stated,  with  the  Preface  of  Wesel  included.  The  intro- 
duction to  the  Rules  of  1840,  written  by  Van  Raalte, 
Van  Velzen,  and  Brummelkamp,  tells  us  that  they  re- 
jected the  "Jus  Patronatus"  entirely,  and  that  there 
was  to  be  "no  power  in  the  government  of  the  churches 
except  in  the  sense  of  the  Fathers."  It  states  also  that 
the  Rules  of  Dort  had  been  re-adopted  to  present  "an- 
other Babel."  But  alas!  the  Seceders  in  old  Holland 
were  not  willing  to  accept  even  the  Rules  of  the  Fath- 
ers of  Dort,  and  instead  of  preventing  a  new  Babel, 
the  return  to  Dort  in  1840  precipitated  a  struggle 
which  lasted  for  decades,  and  which  in  1852  started 
to  disrupt  also  the  Holland  churches  in  Michigan.  This 
inability  to  agree  on  the  police  rules  of  God's  house  in 
the  Netherlands,  where  every  man  did  what  was  right 
in  his  own  eyes,  and  demanded  that  every  one  else 
should  do  as  he  did,  was  the  curse  of  the  secession  in 
old  Holland,  and  also  in  America.  "For  0,  we  can 
tear,  but  we  cannot  heal,"  said  the  introduction  to  the 
Rules  of  1840,— "that  is  His  work." 

Of  course,  as  developments  in  Holland  after  1816 
showed,  these  Rules  are  of  the  greatest  importance. 
The  use  of  a  term  so  equivocal  as  to  mean  either  be- 
cause or  in  so  far  as,  raised  a  commotion  so  powerful, 
that  some  of  the  Seceders  in  Holland  concluded  that 
the  Rules  of  Dort  as  written  in  1619  were  sacred  and 
unchangeable,  and  that  alterations  were  heresy.  This 
fear  became  so  fixed  that  when  some  of  these  same 
Seceders  came  to  America,  they  failed  to  see  the  neces- 
'  sity  of  submitting  to  changes  from  1619,  which  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  had  found  it  necessary  to  make,  even 
though  Dort  itself  had  specifically  provided  for  such 
changes.  These  Seceders  in  America  refused  to  bow  to 
the  necessity  of  making  salutary  changes  involved  in 
what  is  called  Americanization.  They  actually  de- 
manded in  1869  unconditional  acceptance,  not  of  the 
Rules  of  Dort,  but  of  the  Rules  of  Dort  as  written  in 
1619,  without  changes.  So  great  was  the  misconcep- 
tion among  the  Seceders  in  Michigan  in  1857  and  later. 


164  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

that  the  only  bond  of  unity  which  made  possible  the 
"Church  of  the  Fatherland,"  during  the  Eighty  Years 
War,  the  grand  basic  idea  of  the  whole  Reformation, 
expressed  in  the  Voorreden  of  Wesel,  without  which 
there  would  have  been  no  united  Reformed  Church  of 
Holland,  was  ignored,  and  in  its  place  was  put  the  il- 
legal un-Reformed  principle  of  demanding  obedience 
to  the  Rules  of  1619,  in  violation  of  the  whole  spirit  of 
Dort.  In  the  secession  of  1857,  almost  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  "interest  of  the  churches"  (het  profijt  der 
Kerken),  was  sacrificed. 

What  did  Brummelkamp,  Van  Velzen,  Van  Raalte, 
and  the  Seceder  Synod  of  1840,  in  the  Netherlands, 
mean  when  they  re-adopted  the  Rules  of  Dort  as  "the 
only  rule  of  government,  discipline  and  worship  in  the 
Churches,  and,  besides  these,  all  the  Rules  of  preceding 
synods  "tot  opheldering,"  except  that  this  "ophelder- 
ing"  meant  the  explanation  and  clarification  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Dort  Rules  supplied  by  the  Rules  of  Pre- 
ceding Synods?  And  is  this  not  plain,  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  last  article  of  the  Dort  Rules  said  that 
these  rules  "may  and  ought  to  be  changed"  as  the  inter- 
est of  the  churches  may  demand,  and  that  this  same 
Synod  of  1840  re-enacted  bodily  the  Preface  of  Wesel, 
which  said  that  no  holiness  or  piety  can  be  found  nor 
must  be  sought  for  in  such  Rules?  They  certainly  in- 
tended to  say  that  the  whole  Handbook  contained  the 
body  of  Reformed  Church  Rules,  with  changes  and 
variations  allowable  from  time  to  time  as  deemed  neces- 
sary by  duly  constituted  and  authorized  synods,  as  was 
fully  shown  in  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
of  Dort.  The  Rules  of  Dort  of  1619  were  therefore  the 
general  landmarks  only,  and  never  did  the  Church  in 
Holland  or  any  Reformed  Synod  hold  the  Rules  of  Dort 
as  inviolable  or  unchangeable  for  all  time.  This  same 
Synod  of  1840,  while  it  revoked  the  Utrecht  Rule  of 
1837,  said,  "Let  no  one  think  that  with  these  Dort  Rules 
we  impose  a  yoke  upon  the  churches.  No!  We  de- 
sire to  show  that  our  only  object  is  to  approach  as  near 
as  possible  the  government,  discipline,  and  service  our 


THE      POLICE      RULES      OF      GOD's      HOUSE  165 

forefathers  established,"  and  "in  the  spirit  and  ten- 
dency of  the  Fathers." 

What  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Fathers  was  is 
shown  by  the  changes  they  made  in  Church  Rules  from 
Wesel  to  Dort — six  or  seven  different  sets  of  Rules  in 
forty  years,  by  the  deviations  permitted,  and  by  the 
right  to  change  or  annul  or  to  make  new  ones  always 
reserved  in  the  last  Rule  for  succeeding  synods.  The 
Classis  of  Holland,  Mich.,  in  1848,  adopted  the  Hand- 
book of  1840  as  containing  the  "whole  body  of  Re- 
formed Church  government,"  including  the  Preface  of 
Wesel,  "in  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  Fathers." 


166  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XII.    REBELLION   IN   CAMP,   OR  THE 
SECESSION   OF    1822 


1.    Rev.  Conrad  Ten  Eyck  and  His  Critics 

IT  SEEMS  that  in  religion  as  in  physics  there  is  a 
law  that  action  and  reaction  are  equal  and  opposite 
in  direction,  and  by  one  of  those  return  swings  of 
the  pendulum,  a  hundred  years  ago,  rationalism  had 
swept  Puritanism  almost  off  its  feet.  All  the  doctrines 
precious  to  the  Reformed  churches  were  attacked  so 
fiercely,  that  the  General  Synod  in  1817,  thoroughly 
alarmed  by  the  opening  of  the  floodgates  of  liberalism 
in  New  England  and  New  York  City,  and  by  the  break- 
ing-down of  the  Calvinistic  strongholds  there,  by 
means  of  resolutions  and  a  pastoral  letter,  declared 
war  against  the  growing  ecclesiastical  anarchy  and 
heresy.  Part  of  this  pastoral  letter  reads,  "Socinian- 
ism,  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  his  church  with  his 
atoning  blood,  like  smoke  out  of  a  bottomless  pit,  al- 
ready darkens  certain  sections  of  our  country.  Besides 
those  doctrines,  so  congenial  with  the  pride  of  our  de- 
praved nature,  which  have  long  been  known  by  the 
name  of  Arminianism,  which  instead  of  humbling  man 
as  guilty  before  his  God,  foster  his  pride  and  exalt  his 
nature  above  measure,  the  synod  cannot  forebear  lift- 
ing up  a  warning  voice  against  other  errors,  such  as 
the  heresy  of  Antinomianism,  which  absolves  the  sin- 
ner from  all  obligation  to  the  law  of  God  as  a  rule  of 
life,  and  doctrines  of  a  more  specious  and  insidious 
cast.  The  advocates  of  these  dangerous  principles  level 
their  weapons  against  those  ramparts,  those  strong- 
holds, which  are  called  creeds  and  standards  of  the  doc- 
trines of  grace,  which  are  so  important  to  the  mainte- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  167 

nance  of  unity  in  the  faith,  and  the  preservation  of 
pure  and  undefiled  religion.  These  they  reject  or  ex- 
plain away,  by  perverting  their  plain  literal  meaning. 
Not  satisfied  with  ancient  received  doctrines,  they  pre- 
tend to  progressive  improvement  in  the  science  of  sal- 
vation as  taught  in  our  churches.  They  deny  the  total 
corruption  of  our  nature — the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin  and  Christ's  righteousness ;  they  plead  for  an 
atonement  which  is  indefinite  in  its  objects  and  limited 
only  in  its  application.  In  a  word,  they  unhinge  the 
precious  doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  and  open  the 
floodgates  of  error,  which,  like  an  overwhelming  tor- 
rent, is  in  its  tendency  calculated  to  sweep  away  the 
very  foundations  of  evangelical  truth.  And  all  this 
under  the  mask  of  a  name  which  is  not  theirs.  They 
are  not  Calvinists."  Minutes  1817,  p.  49. 

At  about  this  time,  Channing  and  Dewey  were  lead- 
ing the  Harvard  Unitarian  Movement,  and  the  reac- 
tion swept  along  the  Hudson  and  the  Mohawk,  and 
from  New  York  struck  the  Hackensack  and  Raritan 
valleys  in  giant  waves.  The  Reformed  churches  clus- 
tering along  these  rivers  were  right  in  the  path  of  the 
storm.  And  the  rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came, 
and  the  winds  blew  and  beat  upon  those  strongholds  of 
Reformation  doctrine,  and  they  fell  not,  for  they  were 
founded  upon  a  rock.  Some  of  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
Dutch  Church  may  have  wavered  a  little,  but  the  Synod 
and  the  Classis  and  ministers  really  all  stood  firm. 
These  Scotch  Presbyterians,  French  Huguenots,  and 
stolid  Dutchmen  held  high  His  Royal  Banner,  and  kept 
floating  the  flag  of  the  Reformation  over  all  the 
churches  from  Long  Island  to  Owasco,  and  from  the 
Raritan  to  Schagticoke  far  in  the  North.  Even  the 
churches  in  New  York  City  withstood  the  shock, 
though  they  were  in  the  very  storm  center. 

The  rise  of  Methodism  under  the  Wesleys  and  the 
crusade  of  the  Calvinist  Whitfield,  with  their  reactions 
against  dead  orthodoxy  or  formalism,  also  had  their 
effect  on  the  Dutch  churches,  where,  it  must  be  insisted, 
there  was  a  strong  tendency  to  Antinomianism.    This 


168  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

effect  of  the  conflict  between  the  too  rigid  orthodoxy 
and  the  active  exercise  of  Christian  service  of  the  Wes- 
leys  showed  itself  first  in  the  Classis  of  Montgomery; 
and  matters  came  to  a  head  when  Rev.  Conrad  Ten 
Eyck  of  the  Owasco  and  Sand  Beach  Reformed 
churches  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  the  subject  of  the  Atone- 
ment. Rev.  Ten  Eyck  was  an  energetic  worker  in  the 
Vineyard  of  the  Lord.  In  1816  an  awakening  in  his 
churches  added  351  members  on  confession,  and  he 
himself  says,  "For  four  weeks  there  was  nothing  at- 
tended to  in  my  house  of  a  worldly  nature  but  what 
was  absolutely  necessary  to  keep  body  and  soul  to- 
gether." He  preached  in  and  out  of  season,  held  cate- 
chetical classes  in  the  schoolhouses  of  his  parish,  using 
the  Hellenbroek  Catechism  as  a  textbook.  Ten  Eyck's 
pamphlet  precipitated  a  struggle  in  the  Reformed 
Church  between  those  who  insisted  on  emphasizing  the 
doctrine  of  predestination,  with  election  and  rejection, 
on  one  side,  and  those  who  believed  in  offering  the  gos- 
pel message  indiscriminately  to  all. 

In  1819,  Ten  Eyck  was  accused  by  a  few  members 
of  the  Owasco  Church  of  preaching  a  free  and  un- 
limited atonement,  which,  it  was  alleged,  he  claimed 
as  scriptural  and  in  accordance  with  the  standards  of 
the  Reformed  Church.  The  Classis  of  Montgomery, 
by  a  vote  of  11  to  6,  after  much  consideration,  held  that 
the  nature  of  the  difference  on  the  subject  was  not  of 
such  import  as  ought  to  disrupt  the  fellowship  of  Chris- 
tian brethren  and  destroy  the  harmony  of  churches. 
The  matter  was  appealed  to  the  Particular  Synod  of 
Albany,  April,  1820,  which  held  Ten  Eyck's  doc- 
trine contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  church 
standards,  and  referred  the  matter  back  to  the  Classis, 
which  was  a  divided  body,  of  which  the  majority  had 
held  him  "not  essentially  wrong."  Ten  Eyck  now  made 
the  following  statement,  "Although  I  believe  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  to  be  an  expedient  devised  by  infinite 
wisdom,  and  fully  efficient  as  to  its  merits  to  save  the 
whole  human  race,  did  it  comport  with  the  will  of  God ; 


THE      HACKENSACK      mSURRECTION  169 

still  I  believe  that  not  one  of  the  human  family  will  be 
savingly  benefited  by  the  atonement  but  those  who 
were  given  to  the  Son  from  all  eternity.  I  as  firmly 
believe  that  there  is  an  election  of  grace,  and  that  they 
only  will  be  saved,  and  none  but  those,  as  I  believe  any 
other  truth  in  the  Bible.  I  believe  also  that  not  one  of 
the  non-elect  does  perish  in  consequence  of  any  defect 
in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross,  or  of  any 
want  of  sincerity  of  God  in  the  offer,  but  wholly  on 
account  of  their  obstinate  rejection  of  the  mercy  of- 
fered. Hence  I  believe  that  the  perfect  sacrifice  of 
Christ  is  the  grand  foundation  upon  which  the  offer 
of  salvation  is  indiscriminately  made  to  all,  wherever 
the  Gospel  comes ;  the  application  of  its  benefits  to  the 
hearts  and  consciences  of  sinners  is  the  sovereign  act 
of  God."  This  satisfied  the  Classis  and  Part.  Synod, 
although  the  latter  found  many  expressions  in  Ten 
Eyck's  defense  "loose  and  equivocal,"  and  recommend- 
ed him  to  be  "more  cautious  and  circumspect  in  the  use 
of  language  on  that  important  subject." 

In  October  1820,  at  a  special  session  at  Albany, 
the  General  Synod  considered  the  matter  on  appeal, 
and  condemned  the  pamphet  of  Ten  Eyck  and  sub- 
mitted to  him  a  series  of  questions.  His  answers,  in 
which  he  quoted  Witsius,  were  finally  considered  satis- 
factory. The  committee,  of  which,  be  it  remembered. 
Dr.  Solomon  Fraeligh  was  chairman,  declared,  the  Sy- 
nod having  condemned  Ten  Eyck's  opinion  on  the 
atonement  as  contained  in  his  printed  defense  [pamph- 
let], that  "he  had  acted  inadvisedly  and  imprudently 
in  publishing  and  circulating  said  defense,  and  has 
merited,  and  does  hereby  receive,  the  reproof  of  this 
house."  It  was  also  enjoined  upon  Mr.  Ten  Eyck 
henceforth  to  declare  himself  on  the  subject  of  the 
atonement  conformably  to  the  views  expressed  by  the 
General  Synod. 

Meanwhile,  Revs.  Nicholas  Jones  and  Albert  Amer- 
man,  who  were  part  of  the  minority  of  the  Montgom- 
ery Classis,  had  taken  the  law  into  their  own  hands 
and    rebelled.      They    refused    to    answer    questions, 


170  LANDMARKS       OF       THE       REFORMED      FATHERS 

brought  no  elders  with  them,  and  ignored  the  Classis. 
Jones  said  he  did  "not  consider  those  who  voted  in 
favor  of  Ten  Eyck's  defense  as  members  of  the  Classis 
of  Montgomery,  and  that  he  could  not  recognize  them 
as  Christian  brethren;  that  he  could  not  sing  with 
them,  pray  with  them,  nor  preach  with  them;  that  he 
did  not  worship  the  same  God  they  worshipped." 
Amerman  said,  when  called  upon  to  answer  for  his 
delinquency  and  insubordination,  that  he  "could  not 
in  conscience  sit  with  them  and  recognize  them  as 
Christian  brethren,  that  he  viewed  them  as  Arminians, 
and  holding  damnable  doctrines;  that  were  he  cut  off 
by  the  Classis,  that  act  of  Classis  would  only  sanction 
his  own  act." 

The  Classis  after  "due  deliberation  and  prayer  to 
God  for  direction,"  suspended  both  Jones  and  Amer- 
man from  the  exercise  of  the  ministerial  functions  for 
"contumacy  manifested  at  this  time,  and  for  insub- 
ordination to  the  authority  of  the  Classis,  until  they 
make  satisfaction  to  that  body."  The  Part.  Synod  on 
appeal,  recognizing  the  disorganizing  and  ruinous  ten- 
dency of  the  suspended  ministers'  insubordinate  acts, 
held  the  grounds  of  appeal  "as  untenable,  and  sub- 
versive of  all  regular  church  order,  government  and 
discipline,"  and  sustained  the  suspension.  In  October, 
1820,  before  the  General  Synod,  Jones  and  Amerman 
claimed  that  the  Montgomery  Classis  had  so  impaired 
its  standing  by  an  open  avowal  of  heresy  that  their 
insubordination  was  justifiable,  and  that  it  could  not 
therefore  discipline  them.  The  General  Synod,  how- 
ever, affirmed  the  suspension,  declaring  that  the  sus- 
pension was  founded  by  the  Classis  of  Montgomery  on 
the  defendants'  "denial  of  the  authority  of  said  Classis, 
and  on  their  withdrawal  from  its  jurisdiction."  The 
brethren  were  directed  to  return  to  the  Classis,  and 
make  amends.  Rev.  Henry  V.  Wyckoff  had  also  been 
suspended  for  "contumacy  and  contempt"  in  the  same 
connection.  He  was  a  brother  of  the  noted  Rev.  Isaac 
Newton  Wyckoff,  later  well  known  among  the  Hol- 
landers of  Michigan.     Drs.  Milledoler,  Fraeligh,  Can- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  171 

non,  I.  N.  Wyckoff,  Cornelius  Demarest,  Labagh  and 
Cuyler  were  present  at  this  session  of  General  Synod 
and  voted  for  the  above  suspensions  as  good  church 
law,  although  a  few  claimed  that  Ten  Eyck  merited 
more  than  reproof  for  propagating  error,  and  for  not 
disavowing  clearly  the  errors  on  the  atonement  men- 
tioned in  his  printed  defense. 

At  the  same  session,  Revs.  Toll,  Wyckoff,  Jones, 
Palmer  and  Amerman  petitioned  for  reinstatement 
and  their  organization  into  a  new  Classis.  They  con- 
fessed deviation  from  ecclesiastical  order  in  their  con- 
scientious opposition  to  Ten  Eyck.  The  request  was 
granted  subject  to  their  acknowledgment  of  deviation 
from  order  and  their  making  amends,  and  to  desisting 
from  preaching  until  permission  is  given.  This  action 
seems  to  show  an  effort  at  compromising  their  dif- 
ferences ;  but  in  the  same  session  it  appears  that  Rev. 
Silvanus  Palmer  had  declared  he  hoped  the  day  was 
not  far  off  when  our  standards  will  be  subservient  to 
the  Word  of  God," — for  which  he  refused  to  apologize. 
His  seat  was  declared  vacant  (the  seat  of  Rev.  Spin- 
ner, who  was  called  away  on  the  fourth  day  of  ses- 
sion), and  he  was  ordered  under  discipline  for  "per- 
severing contempt  of  the  standards  of  this  church." 

The  minutes  of  the  Sjoiod  of  October  1820,  contain 
the  story  as  given  above,  but  the  leaning  of  the  sus- 
pended brethren  toward  Independency  will  appear  later 
on. 

Rev.  Ten  Eyck,  in  his  ministerial  work,  relied  on 
Art.  V,  Second  Head,  Canons  of  Dort,  "Moreover,  the 
promise  of  this  gospel  is,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
Christ  crucified,  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life.  This  promise,  together  with  the  command  to  re- 
pent and  believe,  ought  to  be  declared  and  published 
to  all  nations,  and  to  all  persons  promiscuously  and 
without  distinction,  to  whom  God  out  of  his  good  pleas- 
ure sends  the  gospel."  Also  on  Art.  V,  First  Head, 
"The  Cause  or  guilt  of  his  unbelief,  as  well  as  of  all 
other  sins,  is  no  wise  in  God,  but  in  man  himself; 
whereas  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  salvation  through 


172  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

him  is  the  free  gift  of  God."  Ten  Eyck  labored  to 
place  the  responsibility  on  man  in  preaching  the  gospel 
to  the  world,  and  no  doubt,  he  was  right.  He  evidently 
considered  the  doctrine  of  election  "never  intended  as 
a  revelation  to  the  unconverted,  but  as  Christ's  private 
message  to  the  saints,  for  the  instruction  and  edifica- 
tion of  God's  people.  Let  others  leave  it  alone  lest  they 
misconstrue  it  to  their  injury."  This  is  a  quotation 
from  "Exposition  of  Reformed  Doctrine"  by  Rev. 
Bosma  of  the  Christian  Reformed  Church,  and  if  it  is 
good  doctrine  in  that  church  now  in  Michigan,  it  cer- 
tainly should  not  have  caused  a  secession  in  Ten  Eyck's 
time.  The  crux  of  the  whole  question  was :  Shall  the 
gospel  be  offered  promiscuously  to  all,  or  shall  the  doc- 
trine of  election  be  emphasized,  and  the  responsibility 
placed  on  God?  Rev.  Ten  Eyck  may  safely  be  consid- 
ered more  nearly  right  than  his  opponents;  and,  no 
doubt,  the  matter  would  have  been  dropped  but  for  a 
dispute  of  a  century's  standing  elsewhere.  The  minis- 
ters suspended  in  1820  were  strongly  imbued  with  the 
spirit  of  independency,  and  until  the  fall  of  1822,  were 
giving  their  independency  free  reign,  until  Rev.  Solo- 
mon Fraeligh,  of  Hackensack  and  Schraalenburgh,  N. 
J.,  visited  them  and  persuaded  them  to  raise  the  stand- 
ard of  revolt  of  the  "precious  against  the  vile,"  in 
other  words,  against  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
which  had  "bowed  the  knee  to  Baal." 

2.    The  Hackensack-Schraalenburgh 
Insurrection 

By  an  extraordinary  set  of  neighborhood  disputes, 
the  people  of  Hackensack  and  Schraalenburgh,  only  a 
few  miles  apart,  had  turned  what  might  have  been  an- 
other garden  of  the  Dutch  church,  into  a  prizefighters' 
arena,  and  their  local  churches  into  synagogues  of 
Satan.  These  two  separate  churches  had  at  first  one 
pastor,  and  were  one  corporation.  Later  two  factions 
arose  in  both  places,  which  gradually  developed  into 
two  congregations  and  two  consistories  at  each  place, 
with  one  clergyman  residing  at  Hackensack  and  the 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  173 

other  at  Schraalenburgh.  These  clergymen  unfortun- 
ately usually  belonged  to  opposite  factions,  and  when 
they  preached  every  alternate  Sunday  at  each  place, 
their  respective  adherents  followed  them  from  place 
to  place.  The  procuring  of  the  original  charter  by  one 
party  (later  Fraeligh's  party) ,  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  other  faction,  caused  the  main  dissension.  At 
the  same  time, — 1730-1771, — the  people  were  divided 
by  strife  between  the  Coetus  party,  which  desired  a 
separate  ecclesiastical  organization  in  America,  and 
the  Conferentie  party,  which  wanted  to  remain  under 
the  renowned  Classis  of  Amsterdam,  and  have  the  min- 
isters ordained  in  Holland.  The  line  of  cleavage  was 
kept  up  during  the  War  for  Independence,  so  much  so, 
that  they  stigmatized  each  other  as  Whigs  and  Tories. 
Still  later  they  divided  largely  as  Democrats  and  Fed- 
eralists; but  meanwhile,  and  all  the  time,  there  were 
disputes  about  church  property  and  conflicts  on  mat- 
ters of  discipline.  The  record  of  the  warfare  in  these 
two  churches  is  a  disgrace  to  the  Christian  Church. 
Calvinists  do  not  believe  that  the  Holy  Spii'it  leads 
church  rebellions  where  earnest  pastors  persist  in  of- 
fering salvation  to  all;  and  therefore  the  mainspring 
of  the  secession  must  be  found  elsewhere.  The  record 
says  the  people  of  Hackensack  and  Schraalenburgh 
followed  their  pastors  Sundays,  "meeting  like  two 
angry  waves."  The  fight  was  intense  for  years,  and 
the  quarrels  of  Solomon  Fraeligh's  and  Warnoldus 
Kuyper's  people  were  before  classes  and  synods,  time 
after  time,  and  committees  failed  to  reconcile  the  war- 
ring factions,  even  after  the  churches  were  attached 
to  separate  classes.  Rev.  Kuypers  died  in  1797,  and 
Rev.  Jas.  V.  C.  Romeyn  was  called  against  the  wishes 
of  Fraeligh.  Gradually  conditions  grew  worse,  until 
Romeyn  accused  Fraeligh  of  receiving  members  from 
his  church  who  had  been  suspended,  and  of  other  ir- 
regularities, notably  the  Hookie  Brom  case.  The  Par- 
ticular Synod  reversed  the  action  of  the  Classis  of 
Paramus,  which  had  favored  Fraeligh.  The  latter, 
who  also  lost  in  the  General  Synod  by  a  vote  of  36  to  8, 


174  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  who  had  for  many  years  been  recalcitrant  in  many 
respects,  failed  to  appear  after  repeated  summons,  and 
went  into  New  York  state  to  the  ministers  he  himself 
had  helped  to  suspend  in  1820,  and  persuaded  them  to 
join  him  in  seceding  —  a  movement  consummated  at 
Schraalenburgh  October  22,  1822,  known  as  the  Seces- 
sion of  1822,  and  resulting  in  the  organization  of  the 
so-called  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 

Fraeligh  had  at  first  attempted  to  unite  the  people, 
but  later  he  was  one  of  the  worst  of  the  agitators ;  and 
for  years  he  had  a  sort  of  ecclesiastical  detective  ser- 
vice without  the  knowledge  of  the  constituted  authori- 
ties of  the  Church.  The  appointment  of  Livingston  as 
professor  of  theology  at  New  Brunswick  in  1810,  of- 
fended Fraeligh,  and  he  threatened  "to  make  them  feel 
his  power." 

In  1873,  Jacob  Brinkerhof  of  Brooklyn  wrote  the 
History  of  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  he 
says  he  was  home  at  Schraalenburgh  from  New  York 
the  day  that  church  was  organized,  and  that  the  Seced- 
ers  had  dinner  at  his  father's  house.  There  were  pres- 
ent Revs.  Abraham  Brokaw  of  Ovid,  Henry  V.  Wyckoff 
of  Charlestown,  Silvanus  Palmer  of  Union,  John  G. 
Toll  of  Middletown,  N.  Y.,  all  suspended  and  deposed 
ministers,  together  with  a  few  elders.  Brinkerhoff 
says,  p.  35,  "They  reviled  and  ridiculed  the  ministers 
and  members  of  the  Reformed  Church  with  a  merri- 
ment and  ribaldry  too  gross  for  the  morality  of  any 
professor  of  religion.  The  vulgarity  of  the  whole  was 
simply  disgusting."  Rev.  Fraeligh  was  the  leader, 
himself  in  process  of  discipline.  (He  had  been  assist- 
ant professor  of  theology  since  1792,  and  was  there- 
fore responsible  to  the  General  Synod  for  his  conduct.) 
Of  the  people  Brinkerhoff  says,  p.  36,  "Many  could  not 
read  tolerably  or  write  legitimately,  and  to  this  day 
many  cannot  read  their  own  vernacular.  People  knew 
nothing  about  Pelagianism  and  Hopkinsianism,  except 
that  they  were  told  these  were  horrible  corruptions  in 
the  old  body." 

The  Seceders  published  a  statement,  dated  Oct.  25, 
in  which  they  held  the  whole  Reformed  Church  re- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  175 

sponsible  for  the  theological  error  of  a  few,  while  the 
standards  are  acknowledged  to  have  been  adhered  to 
closely,  Br.  p.  37.  Errors  in  doctrine,  desecration  of 
the  sacraments,  failure  of  discipline,  are  alleged  as  the 
causes  of  separation.  Nevertheless,  in  the  troubles  at 
Hackensack  not  a  single  doctrine  or  point  essential  to 
salvation  was  involved,  but  the  dispute  turned  on  the 
following:  1.  The  secret  charter.  2.  Ordination, 
etc.,  in  Holland  or  in  America.  3.  Politics.  4.  Dis- 
putes about  church  property,  etc.  If  the  cause  of  seces- 
sion be  located  in  the  "corrupt  Classis  of  Montgomery," 
it  is  pertinent  to  ask  whether  that  Classis,  in  settling 
the  question  of  presentation  of  the  Gospel  to  all  instead 
of  the  elect,  did  not  have  a  more  valid  reason  to  secede 
from  Solomon  Fraeligh  and  allies  than  vice  versa.  For 
surely  that  Classis  and  the  majority  of  the  fathers  in 
the  Dutch  Church  rescued  that  church  from  a  lingering 
death,  by  facing  forward  toward  foreign  missions  in- 
stead of  toward  the  cast-iron  formalism  and  Antinomi- 
anism  that  strangled  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
from  the  beginning.  In  the  whole  history  of  this  seces- 
sion we  look  in  vain  for  a  solid  scriptural  rule  of  ac- 
tion; nothing  appears  but  a  series  of  quarrels  about 
non-essentials,  while  the  important  matter  involved  in 
the  Ten  Eyck  controversy,  has  long  been  practically 
settled  against  the  Seceders.  Nothing  remains,  there- 
fore, but  questions  of  weaknesses  or  imperfections  in 
the  Reformed  Church,  and  these  never  have  been  held 
by  competent  authorities  to  justify  schism  and  deser- 
tion. Deviations,  and  weaknesses,  and  error  in  non- 
essentials do  not  in  the  New  Testament  records  justify 
brethren  facing  about  and  levelling  their  guns  on  their 
fellow-soldiers  in  the  warfare  against  their  common 
enemy.  The  church  at  Corinth  was  worldly,  wicked, 
"corrupt,"  but  to  Paul  it  was  still  "the  Church  of  God 
which  is  at  Corinth." 

Dr.  Fraeligh  was  not  a  great  man,  for  all  that 
rather  able,  and  a  forceful  character.  His  successor. 
Rev.  Cornelius  T.  Demarest  of  the  English  Neighbor- 
hood church,  as  leader  of  the  "True  Church"  was  still 
more  aggressive,  but  also  more  unscrupulous.    During 


176  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

1819-1824,  he  was  accused  of  falsifying  the  minutes  of 
the  Classis  of  Paramus.  He  corrected  these  minutes, 
gave  two  different  conflicting  copies  of  them,  and 
finally  claimed  that  they  were  lost.  In  1824  he  also 
seceded  with  part  of  his  members,  and  was  suspended 
for  falsifying  the  minutes,  and  for  seceding  and  break- 
ing up  his  church.  Demarest  now  became  a  leading 
factor  in  the  secession  church,  and  after  Fraeligh's 
death  in  October,  1827,  wrote  "A  Lamentation  over 
Rev.  Solomon  Fraeligh,"  in  which  he  also  gives  some 
history  of  the  secession. 

Years  before,  in  1795,  during  harvest,  a  terrific 
thunderstorm  struck  Hackensack,  and  a  bolt  of  light- 
ning struck  the  church  steeple.  The  brown  stone  above 
the  church  door  fell  from  its  position,  and  was  broken 
in  three  pieces,  so  that  the  word  "Eendracht"  was  on 
one,  and  "Maakt  Macht"  on  another.  This  was  con- 
sidered ominous  by  some.  Demarest  in  Lamentation, 
p.  61,  says  of  this,  "This  is  my  belief,  founded  on  what 
we  have  seen  and  known  of  these  two  people,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  sign  given  July  10,  1795,  the  Triune  God 
has  made  them  two ;  the  fire  of  grace  on  one  side,  and 
the  fire  of  rage  and  discord  on  the  other."  On  the 
other  hand.  Rev.  Wm.  Linn  of  New  York,  on  a  commit- 
tee, in  1796,  to  adjust  matters  at  Hackensack,  preached 
there,  and  was  reminded  by  the  thunderstorm  of  the 
year  before,  and  the  breaking  of  the  stone  "Eendracht 
Maakt  Macht,"  of  the  thunders  of  the  judgment.  Rev. 
Linn  preached  on  Matt.  5 :9,  "Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers, for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God," 
and  said  to  the  belligerents,  "Where  unity  is,  there 
the  Lord  commands  his  blessing,  even  life  for  evermore. 
How  can  we  expect  a  blessing  to  attend  the  means  of 
grace,  if  we  live  in  strife?  Will  not  God  take  His  Holy 
Spirit  from  us,  and  give  us  up  to  our  lusts  ?  If  we  can- 
not agree  here,  what  ground  is  there  to  believe  that 
we  are  preparing  for  heaven,  the  place  of  eternal  love 
and  peace?"  The  contrast  between  these  two  views  is 
characteristic  of  the  whole  Secession  of  1822. 

Dr.  Fraeligh,  in  June,  1823,  was,  after  repeated 
citation,  and  failing  to  appear,  removed  as  professor. 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  177 

and  suspended  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  until  he 
should  show  repentance  and  make  submission,  for  the 
reasons  that  he  and  others  had  seceded,  and  had  ac- 
cused the  Reformed  Church  of  disregard  of  discipline, 
of  prostituting  the  sacraments,  of  indiscriminate  ad- 
ministration of  them,  of  sanctioning  or  winking  at  un- 
sound doctrine. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  Fraeligh  would  not  have 
seceded,  had  he  not  been  convicted  of  irregularities 
with  the  members  of  Romeyn's  church.  He  was  satis- 
fied with  the  disposition  of  the  Ten  Eyck  case,  and  had 
been  chairman  even  of  the  committee  that  managed 
that  matter.  But,  after  his  defeat  of  1822,  he  raised 
the  cry  of  Hopkinsianism  in  earnest,  and  rallied  some 
of  the  Antinomians  in  the  Reformed  Church  to  his 
standard.  In  the  Bergen  county  region,  Antinomian 
sentiment  had  always  been  rather  strong  even  with 
those  who  did  not  join  in  the  secession.  Rev.  Wilhel- 
mus  Eltinge  of  the  Paramus  church,  who  had  always 
assisted  Fraeligh  in  his  troubles  about  the  professor- 
ship, and  the  like,  when  he  finally  saw  whither  Frae- 
ligh was  drifting,  and  when  he  saw  him  so  irregular  in 
his  conduct  with  Romeyn's  people,  felt  it  his  duty  to 
assist  in  guarding  the  Reformed  Church  from  the  dan- 
ger of  a  dead  orthodoxy  without  active  Christianity. 
The  Ten  Eyck  case  had  been  properly  handled,  it  is 
generally  admitted.  Dr.  Steffens  of  the  Western 
church  said  so  in  his  pamphlet  of  1893,  p.  30;  Rev. 
Hemkes  of  the  seceded  church  said  so  on  p.  17  of  his 
Rechtsbestaan.  The  latter,  however,  says,  "tiiera  was 
Eltinge — nothing  was  done  about  him."  And  then  fol- 
low the  accusations  formulated  by  Fraeligh  in  1824. 
Some  of  these  accusations  and  also  Rev.  Eltinge's  rec- 
ord, are  therefore  directly  in  issue. 

Dr.  Fraeligh  had,  in  1819,  received  without  cer- 
tificate members  of  Romeyn's  church,  baptized  a  child 
of  members  there  under  censure,  and  had  admitted  the 
parents  to  the  Lord's  Supper  a  whole  year  after  the 
censure  had  been  approved  by  a  superior  judicature. 
That  charge  of  baptizing  is  like  the  one  lodged  against 
Rev.  De  Cock,  in  Holland,  in  1833;  but,  strange  as  it 


176  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

seems,  De  Cock  was  suspended,  not  because  of  baptiz- 
ing children  of  other  churches — that  was  forgotten — 
but  for  doing  what  was  his  duty  to  do — ^to  attack  "Two 
Wolves  in  the  Fold."  Rev.  Van  Velzen  has  shown  that 
De  Cock's  action  in  baptizing  children  of  other  congre- 
gations was  practically  letting  the  parents  and  other 
ministers  enforce  the  discipline  in  a  church — a  viola- 
tion of  the  Scripture.  If  De  Cock  is  condemned  by  a 
Van  Velzen,  how  utterly  wrong  must  have  been  the 
conduct  of  Fraeligh,  and  how  necessary  for  Eltinge 
and  others  to  curb  the  growing  heresy  and  rebellion 
in  their  midst. 

Rev.  Eltinge,  rather  a  strong  man,  was  stationed 
at  Paramus,  for  51  years,  and  about  the  year  1800  had 
a  great  awakening  in  his  church.  In  about  1821,  he 
found  friends  of  Fraeligh  taking  notes  of  his  sermons 
for  evidence  of  Hopkinsianism.  In  1822,  the  year  of 
the  secession,  Eltinge  felt  it  necessary  to  combat  the 
Antinomianism  of  Fraeligh  and  others,  which  he  did  in 
his  "Peacemaker:  or  An  Essay  on  the  Atonement  of 
Christ,"  and  in  a  sermon  on  "The  Inability  of  Man  to 
Believe  in  Christ  except  the  Father  Draw  him."  It  is 
rather  remarkable  that  the  Seceders  in  1822  set  up 
their  grounds  for  secession  in  loose  general  terms,  but 
that  in  1824  they  found  evidence  made  in  1823  for  their 
secession  in  1822;  for  their  main  document  of  dissi- 
dence  is  the  Address  of  1824,  largely  extracted  from 
Eltinge's  pamphlet  of  1823. 

3.    The  Points  at  Issue 

The  Eastern  Seceders  were  not  in  a  fog  as  to  the 
sacredness  of  church  rules,  and  many  of  them  rejected 
such  rules  entirely,  and  waged  their  battle  on  doctrinal 
grounds.  They  did  not  oppose  hymns,  or  funeral  ser- 
mons, nor  desired  feast-days,  but  claimed  to  insist  on 
pure  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  Western  Seceders, 
of  1857  and  later,  insisted  to  the  letter  on  the  Dort 
church  rules,  opposed  funeral  sermons,  hymns,  choirs, 
and  picnics.  Doctrinal  arguments  they  lacked,  so  they 
imported  them  from  the  New  Jersey  controversy  of 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  179 

1822-27,  without  importing  the  many  refutations  in- 
volved. 

In  the  secession  of  1822,  Fraeligh  charged  those 
who  wanted  to  observe  a  happy  mean  between  Armi- 
nianism  and  Antinomianism  as  being  Arminians,  while 
the  others  called  Fraeligh  and  his  adherents  Anti- 
nomians.  After  1822,  affidavits  were  published  charg- 
ing Fraeligh  with  preaching  at  Hackensack,  Ponds  and 
Paramus,  that  "temporal  blessings  were  a  curse  to  the 
reprobate" ;  that,  "strictly  speaking,  the  offer  of  salva-  -s^ 
tion  is  not  to  be  made  to  all  who  hear  the  Gospel"; 
that  those  who  had  left  the  Seceders  had,  in  his  opinion, 
committed  the  unpardonable  sin.  Jacob  Terhune,  a 
former  elder  of  Fraeligh's,  made  affidavit  that  he  him- 
self had  heard  Fraeligh  say  about  the  conversion  of 
the  thief  on  the  cross  that  it  was  his  opinion  that  "it 
would  have  been  better  if  our  Savior  had  not  converted 
that  malefactor,"  and  that  when  he  reproved  Frae- 
ligh for  condemning  and  arraigning  the  Savior  for  that 
act,  Fraeligh  replied  that  he  had  read  authors  who 
were  of  the  same  opinion.  On  account  of  Terhune's 
close  relations  with  Fraeligh,  his  affidavit  is  worthy  of 
credence.  There  were  other  affidavits.  Rev.  H.  V. 
Wyckoff  declared  that  "the  elect  are  actually  justified 
from  all  eternity" ;  that  "God  before  the  fall  of  Adam 
was  one,  but  after  the  fall  divided  Himself  into  three 
persons."  Rev.  Palmer  declared  that  a  "believer  is  so 
clothed  with  the  robe  of  Christ's  righteousness,  that 
God  finds  no  fault  with  him."  Mr.  Garritson  said  that 
"the  elect  are  justified  from  eternity,  and  that  minis- 
ters and  elders  must  preach  and  pray  only  for  the  elect 
and  believers."  Mr.  Hopper  declared  that  "Christ  died 
no  more  for  all  men  than  for  devils,  that  temporal 
blessings  are  a  curse  to  the  reprobate,  that  salvation 
and  Christ  are  not  to  be  offered  to  the  non-elect,  and 
that  man  is  not  a  free  agent."  All  these  assertions  of 
the  leading  Seceders  were  shown  by  sworn  statements 
to  have  been  made;  and,  what  is  more  important,  is 
that  the  records  of  the  Seceders,  after  1826,  attest  the 
truthfulness  of  these  affidavits  so  conclusively  that  no 


180  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

further  evidence  is  needed.  For  these  records  contain 
the  most  scathing  denunciation  of  the  Antinomian 
heresies  of  most  of  their  own  people.  Of  course,  Frae- 
ligh  and  Demarest  saw,  but  saw  too  late,  where  the 
Seceders  were  drifting.  They  had  taken  their  inten- 
tion to  restore  what  they  considered  pure  doctrine  as 
their  guide,  without  knowing  the  ruinous  tendency  of 
an  abnormal  emphasis  on  purely  speculative  points, 
or  on  a  few  doctrines  to  the  neglect  of  other  doctrines. 

The  Seceders  furnished  in  1824,  in  their  Address, 
what  purported  to  be  quotations  of  leading  men  in  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  like  Profs.  Livingston  and 
Ludlow,  and  Dr.  Cannon  (not  yet  professor).  Dr. 
Livingston  is  asserted  as  teaching  the  students  that 
"there  is  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  to  forbid  the  hope 
that  all  infants  die  in  Christ,"  that  "all  heathen  shall 
possibly  not  perish,"  and  that  "the  greatest  part  of 
mankind  will  be  saved."  Now,  if  these  statements  con- 
tained all  Dr.  Livingston  said  on  these  subjects,  and  if 
they  had  not  been  still  further  twisted  by  the  Seceders 
in  Michigan  in  1857,  and  later,  by  leaving  out  the  word 
"possibly,"  etc.,  we  would  simply  dismiss  them  as  sam- 
ples of  slight  indiscreetness  on  the  professor's  part. 
But  all  were  wrenched  from  their  connection,  and  one 
of  the  defenders  of  Livingston  speaks  as  follows  in 
"Review  and  Refutation"  (1824),  p.  36:  "Answer  to 
question, 'Shall  infants  be  saved?' — Some  rashly  send  all 
infants  to  hell,  others  carry  them  all  to  heaven.  We  say, 
for  the  infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents,  there  is 
a  promise  of  salvation  in  the  Scriptures ;  their  original 
sin  is  enough  to  condemn  them,  the  atonement  of  Christ 
is  sufficient  to  save  them;  we  leave  them  where  the 
Bible  leaves  them,  in  the  hands  of  a  merciful  God,  and 
come  to  Livingston's  conclusion,  in  the  Scriptures  there 
is  nothing  to  forbid  the  hope  that  all  infants  die  in 
Christ." 

In  answer  to  the  question  about  the  perishing  of 
the  heathen,  the  same  author  says,  "They  all  deserve 
condemnation,  on  the  ground  of  the  law;  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  save  them. 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  181 

God  ordinarily  reveals  his  Son  by  the  Gospel  and  His 
Spirit.  God  is  able,  and  may  immediately  by  His 
Spirit,  make  known  His  Son  to  some  of  the  heathen; 
whether  He  does  so,  the  Bible  does  not  tell  us.  With- 
out sending  them  all  to  hell,  or  carrying  them  all  to 
heaven,  we  leave  them  where  the  Bible  leaves  them,  in 
the  hands  of  a  merciful  God.  The  natural  impossibility 
of  their  salvation  being  removed  by  the  fullness  and 
sufficiency  of  the  atonement,  God  is  able,  and  may  re- 
move the  moral  impossibility  by  His  Spirit  immedi- 
ately; hence  we  fall  in  with  Livingston's  answer,  pos- 
sibly all  the  heathen  shall  not  perish." 

The  same  author  says  about  the  greatest  part  of 
mankind  being  saved,  "The  theory  is  that  for  6,000 
years,  the  smallest  part  of  mankind  shall  be  saved, 
and  such  passages  as  'straight  is  the  gate,  and  narrow 
is  the  way,  and  few  there  be  that  find  it'  (Matt.  7 :14) , 
seem  to  be  restricted  to  that  period;  that  for  1,000  years, 
during  the  glorious  millennium,  by  the  dense  popula- 
tion of  the  earth,  and  the  universal  prevalence  of  true 
religion,  the  ingathering  into  the  Church  will  be  so 
great,  as  not  only  to  make  up  for  the  loss  in  6,000 
years,  but  to  cast  the  balance  by  numbers  in  favor  of 
the  saved ;  and  thus  Christ  will  prove  victor,  and  Satan 
the  vanquished,  even  as  to  numbers.  This  theory  is 
pleasing  as  well  as  rational;  and  I  see  nothing  in  it 
when  thus  explained,  anti-scriptural;  I  feel  therefore 
inclined  to  fall  in  with  Dr.  Livingston's  opinion,  that 
the  greatest  part  of  mankind  shall  be  saved."  Review 
and  Refutation,  p.  36.  Thus,  one  of  Livingston's 
friends  explains  what  substance  there  was  in  the 
charges  made. 

Prof.  Ludlow  it  is  charged,  "taught  the  students 
that  paradise  is  not  heaven,  but  an  intermediate  state 
to  which  the  souls  of  believers  go  after  death,  and  re- 
main there  until  the  final  judgment."  Corwin,  in  his 
Manual,  says  Ludlow  was  appointed  on  account  of  his 
"grave  theology";  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  he 
taught  the  students  as  charged;  but  there  is  evidence 
that  he  told  his  students  what  the  Jews  understood  by 


182  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Paradise,  and  that  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeous,  Tertul- 
lian,  Lactantius  and  Augustine  believed  in  a  middle 
state.  Ludlow  was  professor  in  1819-23,  and  again  in 
1852-57,  and  between  those  dates  he  was  offered  all  the 
seminary  chairs  at  different  times,  without  any  objec- 
tion from  the  Classis  of  New  Brunswick,  which  was 
the  watchdog  of  orthodoxy  in  those  days.  No  doubt, 
Livingston  and  Ludlow  talked  these  matters  over  with 
their  students,  as  was  their  right  and  duty;  but  both 
knew  how  far  theology  had  been  worked  out  by  the 
Reformed  theologians,  and  that  they  had  the  right  to 
"hope"  certain  things  not  so  worked  out,  without  forc- 
ing their  hopes  and  ideas  on  students,  where  the  Bible 
was  silent. 

That  Livingston  even  "believed"  in  infant  salva- 
tion is  evident  from  a  letter  written  to  his  son,  who 
had  lost  a  little  daughter.  The  letter,  dated  Jan.  13, 
1825,  shortly  before  his  own  death,  says,  "I  firmly  be- 
lieve that  all  who  die  in  infancy,  before  they  are  cap- 
able of  actual  sinning,  are  saved  through  and  by  the 
Lord  Jesus ;  for  those  who  have  sinned  in  mature  age, 
bitter  repentance  and  firm  faith  are  indispensable." 
Gunn's  Livingston,  p.  467. 

Dr.  Kuyper,  the  great  Dutch  authority  on  such 
questions,  says  in  his  "Calvinisme  en  Revisie,"  p.  32, 
that  after  the  Calvinistic  churches  at  the  Synod  of 
Dort  had  decided  that  infants  under  the  covenant  re- 
lation who  died  were  elect  and  saved,  "they  remained 
silent  in  their  confession  on  the  children  of  Mohamme- 
dans and  those  of  the  heathen,  not  because  they  denied 
that  God  could  even  there  work  His  secret  work  of 
grace,  but  because  the  Bible  was  silent  on  the  subject, 
and  the  church  could  not  therefore  speak  with  author- 
ity." Dr.  Livingston,  for  the  same  reason,  did  not 
speak  with  authority,  but  he  nevertheless  had  a  right 
to  believe  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  Scripture  to 
forbid  the  hope  that  all  infants  died  in  the  Lord  and 
were  saved,  not  by  themselves,  or  because  they  were 
infants,  but,  as  he  says,  "through  and  by  the  Lord 
Jesus." 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  183 

The  greatest  Calvinist  in  the  Eastern  Reformed 
Church,  Dr.  George  S.  Bishop,  of  East  Orange,  N.  J., 
said  in  1887,  in  a  sermon  on  Predestination,  "The  doc- 
trine of  the  Reformed  Church,  the  oldest  form  of 
Catholic  Calvinism,  is  that  all  infants  who  die  are  elect. 
The  rest,  the  other  infants  who  grow  up  to  years  of 
conscious  and  intelligent  responsibility  are  dealt  with 
as  intelligent  and  responsible.  That  is  our  doctrine, 
and  that  is,  as  we  read  it,  the  doctrine  of  all  other  Cal- 
vinistic  confessions." 

Dr.  Cannon,  then  of  New  York,  was  accused  of  say- 
ing, "There  will  be  more  in  heaven  than  hell  can  con- 
tain," and  from  this  garbled  expression.  Cannon  was 
called  a  universalist.  Judging  from  the  evidently  ade- 
quate conception  of  the  capacity  of  hell  that  Cannon 
had,  as  expressed  in  these  quoted  words,  there  is  noth- 
ing that  savors  of  the  idea  that  no  one  will  get  into  hell. 
Cannon's  record  after  1824  as  professor  is  without 
blemish,  if  the  action  of  the  Classis  of  New  Brunswick 
counts  for  anything. 

4.    Rev.  Wilhelmus  Eltinge  on  the 
Atonement 

But  the  scapegoat  upon  whom  all  the  sins  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  were  laid  was  Rev.  Eltinge, 
whom  the  Seceders  stigmatized  as  Arminian  and  Uni- 
versalist. They  charged  him  with  saying  that  "The 
Atonement  of  Christ  is  not  so  limited  as  to  be  confined 
to  the  elect,"  which  phraseology  would  show  or  tend  to 
reveal  Universalism ;  but  Eltinge's  real  words  were, 
"The  Atonement  of  Christ  is  not  so  extensive  as  act- 
ually to  effect  the  salvation  of  all  mankind  (as  the 
Universalists  say)  ;  neither  is  it  so  extensive  as  to  pro- 
cure and  supply  saving  grace  to  all  mankind  (as  the 
Arminians  say)  ;  nor  is  it  so  limited  as  to  be  confined 
solely  and  wholly  to  the  elect  (as  the  Antinomians 
say)  ;  in  other  words,  that  Christ  died  more  for  all  men 
than  for  devils ;  that  all  those  temporal  blessings  which 
men  enjoy  over  devils,  they  have  through  the  death 
of  Christ,"  Review  p.  3.     Eltinge  is  also  blamed  for 


184  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

saying  that  "Christ  died  for  all  mankind  in  a  certain 
sense,  so  as  to  remove,  on  the  part  of  God,  the  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  salvation."  But  ''Review,"  p.  34, 
denies  this,  and  says  Eltinge  defended  the  following 
heads:  1.  ''The  Atonement  has  removed  the  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  salvation  on  the  part  of  God.  2.  The 
Atonement  has  done  so,  so  as  to  remove  the  difficulties 
on  the  part  of  man,  so  as  to  leave  all  men  without  ex- 
cuse on  Gospel  grounds.  3.  The  Atonement  has  done 
so,  on  the  part  of  man,  so  as  to  secure  and  effect  the 
complete  salvation  of  the  elect."  The  Seceders  also 
charged  Eltinge  with  saying  that  "the  particularity  of 
redemption  consists  not  in  the  price,  but  in  the  appli- 
cation." Eltinge,  however,  said,  "The  death  of  Christ, 
considered  with  regard  to  its  intrinsic  value  is  illimit- 
able ;  with  regard  to  its  offer  and  temporal  effect,  it  is 
universal;  but  with  regard  to  its  saving  effect,  it  is 
limited  to  the  elect  only." 

The  Seceders  also  quoted  Eltinge  as  saying,  "Thus 
you  may  see  how  a  way  is  opened,  through  the  death 
of  Christ,  for  the  salvation  of  all  mankind."  But  the 
sense  of  the  "Peacemaker"  is  so  mangled  by  the  Seced- 
ers, that  the  latter  do  not  show  what  Eltinge  said. 
Eltinge  quoted  repeatedly  the  Canons  of  Dort,  e.  g.. 
Second  Head,  Art.  6,  "It  is  not  owing  to  any  defect  or 
insufficiency  in  the  Atonement,  but  it  is  wholly  to  be 
imputed  to  themselves,"  and  Art.  9,  Third  Head,  "It  is 
not  the  fault  of  the  Gospel,  nor  of  Christ  offered  there- 
in, nor  of  God,  who  calls  men  by  the  Gospel,  and  con- 
fers on  them  various  gifts,  that  those  who  are  called 
by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  refuse  to  come  and  be 
converted;  the  fault  lies  in  themselves."  Eltinge  did 
not  say  that  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  salvation  are 
always  removed,  so  he  is  not  a  universalist.  He  did 
not  believe  the  doctrines  of  indefinite  atonement  and 
natural  ability,  as  the  Arminians  do ;  but  with  the  Cal- 
vinists,  against  the  Antinomians,  he  believed  the 
Atonement,  as  to  its  objective  fullness  or  sufficiency 
to  be  indefinite;  and  that  man  has  natural  ability  so 
far  as  to  constitute  him  a  living,  rational,  and  responsi- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  185 

ble  being;  that  as  natural  power  is  necessary  to  the 
performance  of  a  spiritual  action,  a  holy  or  spiritual 
power  is  also  necessary,  which  the  Spirit  of  God  must 
communicate."     Review  p.  37. 

There  is  nothing  in  Eltinge's  pamphlets  that  de- 
nies total  inability  and  depravity  in  man,  although  he 
seems  to  claim  them  to  be  moral  inability  and  deprav- 
ity; nor  does  he  deny  the  definite  nature  of  the  Atone- 
ment with  regard  to  its  saving  effect  and  ultimate  end. 
He  tried  to  find  a  happy  medium  between  Arminians 
and  Antinomians,  and  maintained  that  man's  inability 
was  moral,  not  natural;  that  man  has  animal  and  ra- 
tional powers,  and  is  not  a  stock  or  a  stone.  On  p.  9 
of  the  "Peacemaker"  he  says,  "I  do  not  assert  that 
Christ  died  in  the  same  sense,  and  procured  the  same 
blessings  for  all  mankind  that  he  did  for  the  elect ;  yet 
I  do  assert  that  Christ  has  died  in  a  certain  sense  and 
has  procured  certain  blessing  for  all  mankind."  El- 
tinge  "preferred  to  view  sin  as  a  crime,  wilfull,  culp- 
able, and  inexcusable,  and  the  Atonement  as  a  satis- 
faction for  crime,  and  thus  opening  a  way  for  any  sin- 
ner to  come  to  Christ,  by  procuring,  not  only  negative 
blessings,  viz.,  a  removal  of  the  obstacles  on  the  part 
of  God,  but  also  positive  temporal  blessings  for  the  re- 
moval of  the  obstacles  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  so  far, 
as  to  leave  every  gospel  hearer  without  excuse,  not  only 
on  the  ground  of  the  law,  but  also  on  the  ground  of  the 
gospel,"  "Review,"  p.  9.  "Eltinge  will  not  have  it  with 
the  Arminians,  that  Christ  laid  down  His  life  as  much, 
and  in  the  same  sense,  for  the  goats  as  for  the  sheep, 
but  he  will  have  it,  against  the  Antinomians,  that 
Christ  laid  down  His  life  more  for  the  goats  than  for 
fallen  angels,"  Review,  p.  22. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Dr.  Fraeligh  very  seldom 
preached  from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  while  Eltinge 
did  so  statedly;  and  it  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that 
Eltinge  heard  Rev.  H.  V.  Wyckoff,  a  Seceder,  suggest 
and  recommend  an  alteration  of  that  catechism,  par- 
ticularly of  the  fifteenth  Lord's  Day,  where  the  words, 
"He  suffered,"  are  explained  by  saying  that  Christ 


185  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

"sustained  in  body  and  soul,  the  wrath  of  God,  against 
the  sins  of  all  mankind."    Review,  p.  39. 

The  writer  of  Review  and  Refutation,  above  quoted, 
says  on  p.  24,  that  the  reason  Eltinge  and  others 
fought  the  Seceders  so  hard  was  because  the  latter  and 
their  friends,  or  some  of  them,  held  the  following  doc- 
trines, viz:  "that  the  elect  are  actually  justified  from 
all  eternity,  that  God  loves  them  with  a  love  of  com- 
placency before  they  believed,  that  Christ  died  no  more 
for  all  men  than  for  devils,  that  temporal  blessings 
are  in  their  nature  and  design  curses  to  the  non-elect, 
that  the  reprobate  are  only  sent  here  to  be  ripened  and 
fatted  for  hell,  that  Christ  and  salvation  are  not  to 
be  offered  to  the  non-elect,  that  man  by  nature  is  not 
only  under  a  moral  inability,  but  also  under  a  natural 
inability  to  love  and  serve  God ;  that  man  is  not  a  free 
agent,  and  of  course  not  a  responsible  being;  that  a 
believer  is  so  clothed  with  the  robe  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, that  God  finds  no  fault  with  him,  or  that  no 
personal  holiness  is  required ;  that  ministers  must  pray 
and  preach  only  for  the  elect  and  believers;  that  God 
before  Adam's  fall  was  one,  but  after  it  divided  Him- 
self into  three  persons ;  that  the  Seceders  discouraged 
an  inquiring  person  by  telling  him  that  no  matter  how 
much  he  wept  and  prayed,  and  read  and  heard  the 
Word,  and  repented  and  believed,  if  he  was  not  of  the 
elect,  he  must  be  lost." 

Against  such  Antinomian  extremes  Eltinge  preached 
pointedly,  and  "declared  that  after  the  example  of 
Christ,  ministers  must  preach  and  pray  for  all  men, 
and  that  if  they  repented  and  believed,  they  would 
be  saved;  and  that  whether  they  were  elected  or  not, 
was  not  the  question  in  place  here;  and  that  the  de- 
crees of  election  and  non-election  were  not  the  rule  of 
our  faith  and  salvation,  but  the  revealed  will  of  God 
expressed  in  the  Gospel,  'Him  that  cometh  unto  me 
will  I  in  no  wise  cast  out'." 

5.    Rebels  on  the  Rampage 

Is  it  surprising,  when  the  leaders  of  the  Secession 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  187 

of  1822,  including  Fraeligh,  and  later,  Demarest,  per- 
sistently preached  such  extreme  Antinomian  doctrine 
as  that  the  elect  are  absolutely  justified  from  all  eter- 
nity, and  that  personal  holiness  and  correct  living 
count  for  nothing,  that  their  church  by  1827  was  the 
corruptest  in  America?  The  pamphlets  of  Rev.  Pauli- 
son  (1831)  and  J.  V.  S.  Lansing  (1827),  and  their  own 
minutes,  reveal  the  depth  of  corruption  in  that  True 
Dutch  Church.  Rev.  Demarest's  letter  to  Fraeligh, 
dated  June  14,  1827,  printed  in  the  Minutes  of  their 
Synod,  p.  56,  shows  the  hopelessness  of  the  situation. 
One  paragraph,  especially,  is  directed  against  their 
own  prevailing  weakness,  "that  when  once  we  receive 
a  man  as  a  saint,  we  must  never  let  him  go,  whatever 
his  subsequent  conduct  may  be.  On  this  ground  [Rev. 
H.  v.]  Wyckoff  retains  many  of  his  members,  and 
others  whom  he  called  poor  tumblers,  who,  as  he  said, 
got  drunk  often,  came  drunk  to  church,  remained 
drunk  half  a  week,  or  a  whole  month;  from  whom  he 
learnt  many  a  lesson  on  'free  grace'  in  pardoning  such 
black  devils,  etc.,  and  who,  he  is  sure  of  it,  as  if  .the 
event  had  already  happened,  would  doubtless  dwell  for- 
ever in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Mr.  [Rev.]  Palmer 
said  it  was  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  Noah  got  drunk 
but  once,  and  that  David  committed  adultery  but  once." 

This  is  one  of  the  many  quotations  that  could  be 
made  from  these  minutes.  The  inference  is  irresisti- 
ble that  many  of  the  True  Church  people  thought  Noah 
and  David,  like  the  drunkards  of  Charlestown,  N.  Y., 
were  habituals,  but  had  been  clothed  with  the  robe  of 
righteousness ;  that  God  found  no  fault  with  them  be- 
cause they  had  been  elected,  and  justified  from  all  eter- 
nity, and  that,  therefore,  they  could  raise  the  devil 
with  impunity.  No  wonder  all  discipline  as  to  morals 
disappeared  in  the  True  ( ?)  Dutch  Church. 

One  of  the  points  in  dispute  was  the  difference  be- 
tween natural  and  moral  disability.  One  of  the  seceded 
ministers  declared  at  Paramus  that  "his  hearers,  while 
unconverted,  were  not  only  dead  in  sins,  but  also  as 
dead  as  a  dead  body,"  when  an  Englishman  in  the  audi- 


188  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ence  replied  that  he  could  show  the  dominie  something 
different  with  his  fists.  The  "Review"  on  page  31, 
explains  the  view  of  some  of  the  opponents  of  seces- 
sion thus :  "Man,  in  his  fallen  state  has  not  the  prin- 
ciple of  holiness  to  perform  a  holy  action — the  Spirit 
must  give  this  principle.  Animal  powers,  and  rational 
faculties,  man  in  his  fallen  state  has,  and  so  far  he 
can  perform  a  good  action,  as  to  the  matter  of  it,  al- 
though he  needs  the  Holy  Spirit  as  to  principle  and 
motive.  Natural  powers  constitute  man  a  responsible 
being.  Man,  then,  as  man  has  natural  powers  to  per- 
form a  good  action  without  the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  so  far 
as  to  bring  him  under  obligation  to  perform  a  good 
action,  and  to  leave  him  without  excuse  when  he  neg- 
lects it.  In  this  sense,  then,  and  so  far,  man  has  as 
much  natural  power  to  perform  a  good  action  as  a  bad 
one." 

With  such  arguments,  it  is  not  diflScult  to  see  where 
the  trouble  lay.  The  questions  of  man's  responsibility 
and  predestination,  of  the  uselessness  or  necessity  of 
a  holy  active  Christian  life,  of  offering  Christ  promis- 
cuously or  only  to  the  supposedly  elect,  of  the  nature 
of  the  atonement,  of  depravity  and  inability,  divided 
the  people.  Each  side  held  an  end  of  the  Canons  of 
Dort,  with  the  result  that  they  disrupted  and  tore  the 
church,  instead  of  agreeing  as  to  essentials.  With  the 
decrees  of  election  in  the  hands  of  God,  and  the  com- 
mand of  God  to  come  and  believe  in  the  Scriptures, 
one  of  the  parties  may  have  placed  too  much  emphasis 
on  man's  responsibility,  and  the  other  too  much  on  the 
doctrine  of  election.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  as 
neither  Eltinge  nor  Ten  Eyck  denied  election  and  free 
grace,  they  had  decidedly  the  better  of  the  argument, 
and  that  the  Seceders  had  no  right  to  secede  when  they 
were  committing  the  greatest  error  in  the  history  of 
the  church,  namely,  mistaking  their  Antinomian  heresy 
for  real  religion.  They  added  to  heresy,  lordship  over 
the  faith,  and  upon  the  failure  of  such  attempted  dic- 
tatorship, they  added  rebellion. 

In  1817-24,  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  189 

Dutch  Church  took  a  definite  stand  for  the  old 
Standards;  and  although  it  admitted  Ten  Eyck  had 
spoken  in  inaccurate  terms,  it  was  also  compelled  to 
condemn  the  heresies  of  the  Seceders.  It  was  un- 
doubtedly of  incalculable  benefit  that  Eltinge  gained 
the  day  against  the  wild  lawless  hyper-Calvinists  of 
that  day.  It  is  evident  that  the  whole  trouble  con- 
sisted in  giving  importance  to  certain  doctrines,  as  if 
these  doctrines  bore  no  relation  to  other  doctrines,  and 
that  the  Seceders  were  much  more  unreasonable  than 
the  others.  There  certainly  was  nothing  in  Fraeligh's 
crusade  that  should  have  any  weight  in  Michigan  in 
1857  and  later.  The  secession  of  1822  found  her  death- 
warrant  in  her  own  minutes  beginning  in  1826.  In 
1827  the  evidence  in  those  minutes  against  the  rebel 
ministers,  except  Brokaw,  is  so  damaging  that  no  Re- 
formed testimony  could  be  as  strong.  Fraeligh  and 
Demarest  saw  the  handwriting  on  the  wall,  when  it 
was  too  late,  and  the  True  Reformed  Church  sentenced 
to  death  their  own  handiwork  when,  in  1829,  they  con- 
demned Revs.  Wyckoff,  Lansing  and  the  Classis  of 
Union.  In  1822  they  resolved  to  restore  the  church  to 
her  original  purity  (no  matter  what  the  Holy  Spirit 
said),  and  by  that  act  they  claimed  to  remain  the  real 
Reformed  Dutch  Church.  Yet  in  1828  this  purified 
church  had  lapsed  into  lawlessness  and  fatalism,  and 
her  people  thought  they  were  elected,  no  matter  how 
they  lived,  as  their  Minutes  show.  There  is  little 
doubt,  that  if  all  sorts  of  questions  causing  anger  and 
clashes  had  not  intervened,  Fraeligh  would  have  seen 
from  his  knowledge  of  church  history.  Providence 
pointing  with  an  unerring  warning  finger  to  the  rocks 
and  shoals  of  Labadism.  But  his  anger  blinded  his 
eyes  and  he  broke  the  bonds  of  love  by  secession.  His 
report  of  1825,  recommending  the  excommunication  of 
the  whole  Reformed  Dutch  Church  on  a  certain  set 
date,  shows  the  state  of  his  mind.  No  wonder  that  this 
project  practically  killed  the  True  Church.  Rev.  Lan- 
sing claimed  there  were  true  believers  in  the  old 
church,  but  Demarest  and  others  did  not  relish  this 


190  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

truth.  But  that  excommunication  process  was  halted 
only  because  Fraeligh  and  Demarest  became  satisfied 
that  excommunication  technically  applied  only  to  indi- 
viduals, not  to  churches,  and  then  only  upon  trial  of 
private  conduct.  It  was  finally  dropped  because  the 
secession  was  held  to  be  a  virtual  excommunication. 

On  July  6,  1824,  Dr.  Milledoler  preached  to  the 
Classis  of  Paramus  at  Hackensack  on  I  Cor.  1:10, 
"Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing, 
and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you;  but  that 
ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind,  and 
in  the  same  judgment."  In  that  sermon  and  in  the 
report  to  the  Synod,  the  controversy  is  reviewed,  and 
attention  called  to  Ten  Eyck's  explanation,  that,  though 
the  atonement  of  Christ  was  of  infinite  value,  never- 
theless that  Christ  died  savingly  only  for  the  elect, 
which  is,  indeed,  far  from  preaching  an  unlimited 
atonement ;  and  to  the  fact  that  the  General  Synod  was 
satisfied,  from  Ten  Eyck's  whole  deportment,  that  he 
had  acted  inadvisedly  and  imprudently  in  publishing 
his  pamphlet,  which  act  they  condemned,  and  that, 
considering  the  explanations  rendered,  there  was  not 
sufficient  ground  for  his  suspension.  Milledoler,  re- 
garding the  claim  of  the  suspended  and  seceded  minis- 
ters that  they  could  not  associate  with  men  who  advo- 
cated Hopkinsian  errors,  said,  "The  whole  of  this  mat- 
ter is  that  the  ministers  alluded  to  were  deposed  from 
their  office,  not  for  maintaining  truth  against  error, 
but  for  insubordination  to  the  constituted  authorities 
of  the  church ;  and  for  such  insubordination,  too,  as 
placed  their  best  friends  in  a  situation  in  which  it  was 
impossible  to  justify  their  conduct." 

Letters  from  Dr.  Fraeligh  to  Revs.  Eltinge,  Has- 
brouck  and  Cannon,  written  some  years  before,  show 
him  to  have  been  long  of  a  discontendcd  and  trouble- 
some mind,  and  the  affidavit  of  Judge  Jacob  Terhune, 
once  an  elder  of  Fraeligh,  a  member  of  the  legislature, 
and  for  years  judge  of  Bergen  county,  shows  the  main 
cause  of  Fraeligh's  secession  to  have  been  his  treat- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  191 

ment  of  Romeyn's  members,  for  Terhune  says,  he, 
without  knowing  the  secession  had  taken  place  submit- 
ted to  Fraeligh  another  plan  to  adjust  matters  with 
Romeyn,  when  Fraeligh  declared,  if  that  had  been  done 
"he  would  not  have  gone  from  the  church."  Taylor's 
Annual  of  the  Classis  of  Bergen,  p.  230. 

In  June,  1825,  a  committee  of  the  General  Synod  of 
the  True  Church  reported,  recommending  that  the  min- 
isters, elders  and  deacons  composing  the  synods,  classis 
and  consistories  of  the  so-called  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  and  all  who  were  members  and  continued  in 
communion  with  them,  be  "excommunicated  and  de- 
livered to  Satan  until  they  repent,"  and  that  "a  day  be 
set  for  such  excommunication."  Fraeligh  was  chair- 
man of  that  committee.  Action  was  deferred  till  June 
1826,  when  the  subject  was  indefinitely  postponed, 
Annals  of  Bergen,  p.  274.  Secession  was  finally 
thought  a  sufficient  excommunication  of  the  whole 
Christian  world,  without  donating  further  to  the  Devil. 
Several  lawsuits  for  the  church  property  took  place, 
as  at  Ovid,  West  New  Hampstead,  and  English  Neigh- 
borhood. Blauvelt,  a  Seceder  student,  was  shot  at, 
locks  and  doors  were  occasionally  broken,  and  at 
Aquackenonck,  it  is  claimed  the  church  was  set  afire. 
Many  things  were  done  decently  and  in  order  to  the 
edification  of — the  world.  Families  were  divided  and 
disrupted,  and  the  feelings  engendered  were  the  de- 
light of  the  worldly-minded  neighbors. 

Demarest,  in  his  Lamentation  over  Fraeligh,  calls 
apostrophies  to  the  departed  spirits  of  Dr.  Livingston, 
Laidlie  and  other,  idolatry,  worship  of  saints — popery, 
yet  he  fairly  claims  Fraeligh  heard  a  voice  from  heaven 
directing  him.  Fraeligh  was  "heaven-born."  Dr. 
Milledoler's  beautiful  sermon  at  Hackensack  "must 
have  proceeded  from  the  Spirit  of  Lies."  Demarest 
also  gives  a  few  salient  facts  of  the  life  of  Fraeligh, 
and  particularly,  that  he  was,  in  1800,  one  of  the  presi- 
dential electors  voting  for  Jefferson,  the  awakening  in 
Fraeligh's  church  in  1800,  etc.  One  exaggerated  state- 
ment after  another  appears  in  the  Lamentation.    How- 


192  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ever,  Rev.  Jas.  V.  C.  Romeyn  scored  the  Seceders  un- 
mercifully in  the  newspapers,  and  accused  the  Seceders 
of  uttering  in  the  pulpit,  "by  one  or  the  other  of  the 
fraternity,"  of  the  following  doctrines :  that  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Reformed  Church  and  of  Dort  are  unscrip- 
tural;  that  the  Gospel  must  be  preached  to  the  elect 
only;  that  the  bounties  of  Providence  and  of  Gospel 
privileges  are,  in  themselves,  and  as  bestowed  by  God, 
curses  to  the  non-elect;  that  our  Savior  did  wrong  in 
converting  the  thief  on  the  cross ;  that  those  who  once 
followed  them  [Seceders]  and  have  gone  back,  walk- 
ing no  more  with  them,  have  committed  the  unpardon- 
able sin.     Brinkerhof,  p.  43. 

Rev.  C.  T.  Demarest  lost  two  children  at  English 
Neighborhood,  N.  J.,  and  at  about  the  time  he  was  sus- 
pended in  1824,  he  had  a  tombstone  erected  over  their 
remains  with  the  following  inscription:  "We  have 
buried  our  children  with  the  Outcast  of  God,"  thus 
inscribing  in  stone  his  inveterate  hostility.  A  few  days 
later  the  stone  was  found  in  the  road  broken  in  three 
pieces,  and  Demarest,  complaining,  asked  why  the 
enemy  had  not  dug  up  the  remains  also,  and  thrown 
them  to  the  hogs.    Brinkerhof,  p.  59. 

The  True  Dutch  Reformed  Church  reached  its  high 
water  mark  in  1825,  with  21  churches,  composing  the 
two  classes  of  Hackensack  and  Union, — both  tinctured 
with  Antinomianism  and  Independency.  In  1828,  the 
Classis  of  Union  returned  their  copies  of  minutes  of 
their  General  Synod,  stating  in  writing  that  the  min- 
utes were  false  and  the  work  of  an  "overbearing 
majority  acting  as  a  false  church,"  and  referring  to  the 
"serpentine  conduct  of  the  Stated  Clerk  [Demarest] 
and  his  coadjutors."  In  1829  the  majority  of  the 
Classis  of  Union  were  practically  expelled  without  a 
hearing,  because  they  refused  to  submit  to  the  "purg- 
ing" process.  Their  own  minutes  speak,  p.  33,  of  their 
having  felt  each  other's  "horns  and  hoofs."  In  1828, 
Rev.  Peter  Fraeligh,  son  of  Dr.  Fraeligh,  took  his  own 
life,  having  been  charged  with  undue  influence  in  draw- 
ing a  will  by  which  he  would  have  benefited.     This 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  193 

caused  immense  excitement,  although  Corwin's  Man- 
ual softens  this  matter  generously. 

In  1829,  Rev.  J.  V.  S.  Lansing  was  declared  an 
"apostate,"  and  his  name  erased  from  all  the  records. 
Rev.  Paulison,  who  praised  the  Seceders  highly  in  a 
pamphlet,  and  joined  them  in  1831,  the  next  year  re- 
pudiated them  in  a  powerful  pamphlet,  and  referred  to 
them  "as  the  corrupt  leaven  of  church  pride,  party 
spirit  (political,  he  meant)  and  false  religion  were  at 
work  and  prevailed,"  "Gospel  hated  in  reality,"  "sup- 
erficial professors  who  thought  they  knew  a  great  deal, 
but  who  never  discovered  a  saving  acquaintance  with 
the  first  lessons  taught  in  the  school  of  Christ."  In 
1834  the  elders  Van  Houten  and  Westervelt  were  re- 
moved, and  the  Paterson  church  dissolved  on  account 
of  insubordination  and  heresy.  In  1833,  the  Mount 
Morris  church  was  divided  on  certain  questions,  and 
the  Synod  commanded.  Minutes,  p.  6,  that  "the  minis- 
ters and  members  of  the  True  Dutch  Church  keep  aloof 
from  the  benevolent  and  moral  societies  of  these  times," 
and  among  the  reasons  given  are  that  "each  member 
is  bound  to  promote  the  objects  of  such  societies"  (al- 
though Brinkerhof  says  that  every  one  knows  that 
there  was  never  a  collection  taken  in  their  churches 
for  such  purposes),  "and  that  some  of  those  societies 
require  their  constitutions  to  be  pasted  on  the  fly-leaf 
of  Bibles,"  etc.,  "which  no  Christian  can  accede  to." 

In  1842,  we  read  of  "want  of  brotherly  love";  in 
1843,  it  is  "churches  diminishing  in  numbers  by  deaths, 
by  removals,  by  apostasy  to  the  corrupt  body  we  left; 
or  some  other  body,  if  possible,  still  more  corrupt," 
Br.  p.  79 ;  in  1849,  it  is  "much  lukewarmness  and  bar- 
renness in  both  ministers  and  people,"  Br.  p.  80.  In 
1851,  Brinkerhof  says,  the  whole  affair  has  now  come 
down  to  such  a  state  as  to  be  mainly  dependent  upon 
the  political  affinities  of  democrats  for  a  continued  ex- 
istence, p.  80.  Brinkerhof,  who  was  very  familiar 
with  the  whole  history  of  the  secession,  in  1853,  chal- 
lenged Rev.  C.  T.  Demarest  to  a  joint  debate  on  the 
subject,  which  the  latter  did  not  accept. 


194  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Writing  to  Fraeligh,  Demarest  said,  "the  seeds  of 
discord,  the  elements  of  disorganization,  are  deep- 
rooted  and  abundant  among  us,  and  unless  the  Lord 
prevent,  will  begin  to  spring  up  and  rapidly  grow  to 
the  great  distress  and  grief  of  our  Zion."  In  a  pastoral 
letter  of  1827,  signed  by  Rev.  Wyckoff  and  Lansing, 
soon  to  be  cut  off,  the  burden  is  internal  bickerings 
and  narrowness  of  spirit,  and  one  expression  is,  "If 
ye  bite  and  devour  one  another,  take  heed  that  ye  be 
not  consumed  one  of  another.  Oh!  who  can  tell  what 
resulting  triumphs  would  be  offered  to  our  great  ad- 
versary, should  we  now  fall  by  the  way?"  In  1833  a 
pastoral  letter  says,  "Some  of  our  churches  are  increas- 
ing, others  decline,  some  have  comparative  peace,  others 
are  rent  and  torn  by  divisions;  some  doubtless  will 
abide  the  trial,  others  are  already  dissolved  or  have 
apostatized;  *  *  *  some  members  are  not  suffici- 
ently grounded  in  the  necessity  of  separating  from  all 
corruptions  and  corrupt  bodies,  and  keeping  separate 
all  the  days  of  their  life  upon  earth.  We  fear  too  that 
the  catechising  of  children  is  neglected  by  some,  and 
family  worship  by  others,"  Minutes  p.  12.  Printed 
with  the  minutes  of  1834  is  an  elaborate  Defense,  etc., 
of  50  pages,  in  which  it  is  evident  that  the  rocks  upon 
which  the  True  Reformed  Church  was  shipwrecked 
were  Independency  and  Antinomianism.  The  Defense 
says,  "Since  our  separation  from  the  corrupt  judi- 
catures of  the  Dutch  Church,  we  have  met  with  a  suc- 
cession of  troubles,  owing  to  the  unsettled  views  of 
some  of  those  who  seceded,  and  a  strong  tendency  in 
their  minds  toward  Antinomian  error  in  doctrine,  and 
an  independent  mode  of  church  government.  It  might 
have  been  conjectured,  when  we  saw  in  the  body  to 
which  we  belonged,  the  authority  of  Christ  and  the 
laws  of  his  house  perverted  to  screen  heresy  and  op- 
press lovers  of  truth,  that  some  would  be  tempted,  in 
shaking  off  the  tyranny  grafted  upon  Presbyterianism, 
to  run  into  an  opposite  extreme — the  wildness  and  law- 
lessness of  Independency.  Nor  was  it  a  matter  of 
great  surprise,  after  we  had  successfully  resisted  a 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  195 

subtle  modification  of  Arminianism  under  the  name  of 
Hopkinsianism,  the  great  adversary  should  drive  un- 
stable souls  through  an  imaginary  horror  of  Arminian- 
ism to  the  opposite  extreme  of  Antinomianism — from 
a  dread  of  denying  free  grace  to  an  abuse  of  it,"  p.  31. 
Antinomians  (against  the  law,  literally)  are  those  who 
say,  "If  we  are  saved  by  faith,  what  is  the  use  of  doing 
good?  Saints  cannot  do  wrong,  sin  cannot  hurt  them. 
God  does  not  see  sin  in  them."  "Antinomians  turn  the 
grace  of  God  into  licentiousness,"  p.  61.  "The  Hop- 
kinsian  doctrines,  on  account  of  which  we  left  the  old 
body,  were  two:  Universal  Atonement  and  Natural 
Ability,"  p.  63, — substantially,  "there  is  no  original 
sin,  and  man  can  regenerate  himself." 

Rev.  Brokaw's  Pastoral  Letter  of  1833  contains  the 
following  characteristic  declarations:  "the  towers  of 
the  Reformation  are  falling,"  "the  Reformed  Church  is 
still  more  corrupt,"  "the  General  Assembly  has  made 
sinful  compromises,"  "the  ancient  fortress  of  Zion,  the 
Reformed  Presbyterian  has  yielded."  "Who  does  not 
lament  the  divisions  of  Joseph?"  "Liberty  is  the  lib- 
erty of  Popery,  Hopkinsianism,  Antinomianism,"  etc, 
"All  good  men  sigh  and  cry";  "refrain  from  the  as- 
semblies of  the  corrupt"  (other  churches) .  "Converts 
are  needed  —  broken-hearted,  regenerated,  weeping, 
praying  souls."  (Just  as  if  there  were  none  in  the 
other  churches  with  a  broken  and  a  contrite  spirit.) 

A  pastoral  letter  of  1859  says,  "Abstain  from  visit- 
ing the  Sunday  schools,  the  so-called  Bible  classes,  in 
upholding  which  all  the  denominations  agree,  and 
whose  disqualified  teachers,  male  and  female,  not  au- 
thorized by  Christ,  are  allowed  to  oflEiciate."  Their 
pastoral  letter  of  1858  condemns  the  great  revivals  in 
the  East,  and  ascribes  them  to  Satan.  In  1843,  they 
challenged  the  Baptists  to  call  themselves  "Mersers, 
Immersers,  Submersers,  Dippers,  and  the  like.  We 
dare  them  to  be  so  consistent." 

The  efforts  of  the  seceded  brethren  for  pure  doc- 
trine showed  that  they  had  a  zeal  for  God,  but  not 
according  to  knowledge.     They  broke  the  communion 


196  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

of  saints  by  virtually  excommunicating  Protestant 
Christendom,  and  signalized  the  Methodists  as  sinners 
above  all.  Their  aloofness  from  all  benevolent  and 
moral  movements  violated  the  basic  law  of  Christi- 
anity— love  of  mankind.  They  left  the  Dutch  church 
because  the  rules  were  enforced,  but  within  ten  years 
they  condemned  and  excommunicated  one  another,  and 
thus  became  the  most  tyrannical  church  of  all.  They 
charged  against  the  Reformed  church  in  1822,  that  the 
Lord  had  a  controversy  with  her,  because  she  opened 
the  floodgates  of  error;  persecuted  and  starved  faith- 
ful pastors;  had  ignorant  consistories,  ministers,  and 
synods;  prayerless,  godless  members;  and  allowed 
Methodists  to  preach  and  take  communion  with  them: 
while  the  Seceders  themselves  knew  not  that  the  most 
rigid  orthodoxy  usually  reigned  with  spiritual  dark- 
ness, that  Methodism  everywhere  has  tried  to  recall  the 
churches  to  Godly  acts,  and  has,  by  its  fearless  and 
timely  declarations  of  war  against  all  forms  of  evil, 
deserved  the  title  of  The  Almighty's  Thundering 
Legion.  The  True  Church  in  1822  unanimously  agreed 
to  restore  the  church  to  her  original  purity,  and  there- 
by remain  the  true  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  but  it 
established  a  dictorial,  Labadistic,  Antinomian  olig- 
archy— a  lordship  over  the  faith,  an  impossibility  when 
it  claimed  practically  "absolute  perfection  as  an  addi- 
tional mark  of  the  true  church  of  God,  which  betrayed 
both  ignorance  and  presumption,  and  if  rigidly  car- 
ried out,  would  not  leave  a  single  true  church  on 
earth,"  Annals  of  Bergen,  p.  225.  It  is  inconceivable 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  inspired  Dr.  Fraeligh  and  the 
others  to  extreme  defense  of  orthodoxy,  to  break  the 
unity  of  the  church  and  the  communion  of  saints,  and 
thus  to  become,  by  their  exclusiveness  and  Pharisaism, 
the  worst  enemies  of  true  holiness.  No  wonder  Dr. 
Steffens  in  his  Gedachten,  p.  30,  calls  the  movement  a 
"pietistic,  Labadistic,  and  Antinomian  schism." 

The  capital  error  of  the  secessionists  was  the  at- 
tempt to  magnify  the  tenets  of  election  and  rejection, 
which  tended  to  obliterate  human  responsibility,  and 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  197 

caused  men  to  say,  "Nothing  can  hinder  the  salvation 
of  the  elect,  let  them  live  as  they  please,  and  nothing 
can  assist  the  reprobate,  though  they  perform  the 
works  of  the  saints."  They  preached  in  and  out  of  sea- 
son the  doctrine  that  man  had  been  absolutely  pre- 
destinated either  to  be  saved  or  to  be  lost,  from  all 
eternity, — a  dangerous  medicine,  against  which  the 
fathers  of  Dort  had  warned  when  they  said,  Canons, 
Head  1,  Art.  14,  that  this  doctrine  of  election  should 
be  preached  "in  due  time  and  place,"  "in  the  spirit  of 
discretion  and  piety,"  and  "without  prying  into  the 
secret  things"  of  the  Most  High.  All  Calvinists  be- 
lieve that  man  was  predestinated  to  be  saved  or  lost 
from  all  eternity,  but  that  this  doctrine  must  not  be 
preached  promiscuously  and  without  regard  to  the 
state  of  spiritual  development  of  the  hearers.  The  half 
has  not  been  told  about  the  wickedness  of  this  True 
Reformed  Dutch  Church.  One  of  the  most  unusual  and 
unscriptural  rules  these  Seceders  had  adopted  required 
that  every  witness  in  their  church  courts  should  be  a 
member  of  their  church  in  regular  and  good  standing, 
before  his  testimony  could  be  admitted.  In  fact,  it 
was  Rev.  Paulison's  rejection  of  this  rule  that  largely 
caused  the  second  secession  from  that  church  in  1832. 
Their  insistence  on  separation  from  the  world,  their 
rejection  of  Christian  churches  who  agreed  with  them 
on  the  New  Testament  essentials,  are  the  factors  that 
lay  their  secession  open  to  suspicion.  Their  war,  their 
controversy  (Fraeligh's  controversy — not  God's),  has 
been  irretrievably  lost,  and  the  Dutch  church  has  faced 
forward  ever  since,  and  heard  the  Macedonian  call 
"Come  over  and  help  us." 

Dr.  Fraeligh  and  the  Seceders  practically  made 
Paul  a  heretic,  for  he  merely  warned  the  Corinthians 
against  most  of  their  litigations,  crimes  and  heresies. 
He  did  not  secede  from,  nor  excommunicate  them,  nor 
"deliver  them  to  Satan."  Drunkenness  at  the  com- 
munion service  was  one  of  the  counts  against  them,  yet 
Paul,  despite  all  those  besetting  sins,  heterodoxy,  and 
what  not,  says,  "I  thank  my  God  always  on  your  behalf, 


198  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

for  the  grace  of  God  which  is  given  you  by  Jesus 
Christ,"  I  Cor.  1 :4.  This  church  was  young,  and  firm- 
ness was  tempered  with  gentleness ;  but  Paul  knew  that 
his  action  toward  that  church  would  be  followed  as  a 
precedent,  and  if  secession  and  desertion  on  account 
of  defects  were  right,  he  would  have  said  so.  It  is 
remarkable  that  the  apostle  who  wrote  the  most  about 
predestination  and  election,  and  the  sovereignty  of 
God,  was  the  most  persistent,  irrepressible  missionary 
of  all  time.  The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  held  with 
Paul  on  both  questions,  as  is  fully  demonstrated  in  her 
history  by  her  synodical  legislation  and  her  mission- 
ary endeavors.  This  is  more  than  can  be  claimed  for 
the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  The  "precious" 
were  not  all  with  Fraeligh,  nor  the  "vile"  with  Kuyp- 
ers  at  Hackensack.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Kuypers 
and  Romeyn  were  Arminians,  but  there  is  evidence 
that  Fraeligh  and  the  Seceders  missed  the  grandest 
truths  of  Calvinism,  when  they  decided  that  the  rest 
of  the  world  was  too  unclean  to  associate  with,  and 
was  therefore  excommunicated. 

A  multitude  of  details  have  been  given  above,  be- 
cause, in  legal  parlance,  they  are  part  of  the  res  gestae 
(things  done,  the  entire  transaction,  the  essential  cir- 
cumstances attending  the  transaction).  Things  said 
and  done  show  the  mental  attitude,  the  heart  of  the 
actors.  Wherefore,  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them. 
True  faith  manifests  itself  outward  into  actions  and 
good  works.  Now,  Dr.  Fraeligh  and  his  followers 
were  probably  pious  and  sincere,  but  so  were  de 
Labadie  and  other  pietists.  It  was,  however,  poor 
strategy  to  retire  from  the  field  into  forts  to  be  be- 
sieged, and  surrender  the  field  to  the  enemy.  Fraeligh 
was  guilty  not  only  of  surrendering  the  field,  but  he 
used  what  guns  he  had  against  those  who  were  his 
brethren  in  the  Army  of  the  Lord.  From  fear  of  con- 
formity to  the  world,  the  Seceders  went  to  the  opposite 
extreme  of  conformity  to  the  cloister. 

And  the  extremity  to  which  almost  all  of  the 
Seceder  ministers,  except,  perhaps,  Fraeligh  and  De- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  199 

marest,  went  on  the  question  of  Church  Rules  is  evi- 
dent from  a  little  work  published  in  1823,  by  one  of 
the  suspended  ministers,  Rev.  Amerman,  entitled  "The 
Church  of  Christ  Independent  of  the  Synod  of  Dord- 
recht, and  all  other  synods,  or  Scriptural  Principles  in 
Helation  to  the  Order  and  Government  of  the  Church," 
with  notes,  and  also  as  appendix,  Carson's  "Reasons 
for  Separating  from  the  Classis  of  Ulster"  (Ireland) . 
In  this  book  are  the  following  expressions :  "The  un- 
dersigned objects  to  the  government  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  because  it  is  regulated  by  a  code  of 
laws,  the  result  of  human  wisdom."  "The  undersigned 
denies  that  the  children  of  God  can  constitute  repre- 
sentatives who  shall  determine  for  them  what  is  truth 
and  duty."  Carson  says,  p.  62,  "If  a  particular  [Inde- 
pendent] church  degenerates,  becomes  erroneous  or  in- 
different, or  ineffectual,  it  has  no  power  to  injure  oth- 
ers, or  to  draw  them  into  its  errors."  Carson  also 
says,  p.  91,  "Liberty  to  enact  laws  as  regulations  [for 
churches]  according  to  the  exigence  of  circumstances, 
is  to  arraign  the  competency  of  Christ  as  King  of  the 
Church,  and  a  declaration  that  He  left  the  code  of  laws 
imperfect."  All  this  is  strange  language  for  those  who 
in  1822  claimed  they  left  the  Reformed  Church  "in 
order  to  remain  the  true  Reformed  Dutch  Church." 
This  is  Independency  of  the  strongest  kind,  and  this  is 
heterodoxy  of  a  most  malignant  type,  involving  the  de- 
struction of  Church  Rules  not  only,  but  also  that  of 
the  Catechism,  the  Confession,  and  the  very  Canons  of 
Dort. 

No  doubt  the  True  Reformed  churches  were  honey- 
combed with  such  heresies  in  1822,  but  the  seeds  were 
sown,  and  the  bitter  fruit  thereof  disrupted  and  well- 
nigh  annihilated  them.  The  mother  church  was  saved 
from  disaster  and  a  similar  fate,  when  she  turned  her 
face  the  other  way,  and  listened  to  the  call  "Go  teach 
all  nations,"  and  took  her  position  in  the  far-flung  bat- 
tle line  against  the  strongholds  of  sin  in  Borneo,  India, 
China  and  Japan. 

At  the  present  day,  even  the  Seceders  of  the  West 


200         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

admit  that  the  Seceders  of  1822  were  Labadists.  Rev. 
Beets  in  his  history  says  he  learnt  this  fact  from  read- 
ing about  them,  and  from  contact  with  some  of  their 
descendants  who  joined  the  western  secession  church 
in  1890.  But  they  were  declared  such  as  far  back  as 
1822,  a  hundred  years  ago,  by  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  which  knew  the  facts  still  better.  If  they 
were  Labadists  and  Antinomians,  they  were  most  un- 
safe guides.  Yet  this  writer,  Beets,  in  his  Zestig 
Jaren,  on  p.  107,  says  that  "the  Reformed  Church  devi- 
ated from  the  three  marks  of  the  church  in  a  dubious 
way,"  and  that  "errors  were  permitted  like  those  of 
Ten  Eyck,  Field,  Cannon,  and  others,  considered  at 
length  in  the  well-known  Brochure  [of  1869],  and 
never  explained  in  a  satisfactory  manner."  Of  course, 
if  one  ignores  all  the  evidence  furnished  by  Eltinge, 
and  by  the  records  of  the  Seceders  themselves,  and  con- 
tinues to  quote  as  authority  quotations  garbled  from 
already  garbled  quotations  of  the  Address  of  1824,  so 
as  to  maintain  an  excuse  for  the  secession  of  1857, — 
these  errors  of  Ten  Eyck  and  others  have  never  been 
satisfactorily  explained.  But  if  the  evidence  of  the 
Reformed  Church  is  placed  in  array,  with  the  quota- 
tions in  their  proper  connection,  and  with  the  records 
of  the  Seceders  themselves,  the  Labadistic,  Antinomian 
heterodoxy  and  rebellion  of  Fraeligh  and  his  followers 
have  never  been  explained  satisfactorily.  And  if  the 
Brochure  of  1869  had  only  "considered  at  length"  the 
errors  of  Ten  Eyck  and  others,  and  had  only  weighed 
Cannon's  Pastoral  Theology,  instead  of  a  garbled  frag- 
ment of  a  sermon  claimed  to  have  been  delivered  at 
Hackensack ;  and  had  only  taken  these  quotations  from 
the  Address  of  1824,  and  fitted  them  into  their  proper 
connection,  instead  of  disposing  in  one  or  two  lines  of 
those  important  matters,  Fraeligh's  and  Brochure's 
cause  would  have  suffered  irreparable  injury,  while  the 
Brochure  authors  would  have  saved  themselves  from 
the  charge  of  parading  the  worst  form  of  heresy  and 
rebellion  as  true  godliness,  and  would  not  have  become 
the  libelers  of  men  like  Prof.  Cannon  by  means  of 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  201 

garbled  and  dishonest  quotations!  The  leaders  of  the 
Michigan  secession  were  filled  with  the  husks  of  those 
Eastern  "fanatics  for  fatalism."  Is  it  so  Christlike 
to  foment  discord  among  the  Hollanders  of  Michigan, 
and  to  feed  the  people  of  Holland  with  such  partisan, 
one-sided  arguments,  manufactured  by  a  sect  reeking 
with  Donatism,  Independency  and  Antinomianism, 
against  men  who  tried  their  best  to  prevent  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  from  going  into  the  same  or  the 
opposite  extreme?  It  is  not  so  plain  that  Ten  Eyck, 
Eltinge,  and  the  Classis  of  Montgomery  were  "cor- 
rupt," as  the  Address  of  1824  alleges;  but  it  is  plain 
that  Fraeligh,  Demarest,  and  the  other  Seceders  were 
rather  the  "corrupt"  deviators  from  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  practice,  according  to  their  own  records.  Not 
a  word  of  evidence  beyond  the  minutes  of  the  meetings 
of  those  Eastern  Seceders  is  needed,  to  make  them  out 
as  one  of  the  greatest  Antinomian  abortions  of  the 
Christian  era.  The  secession  in  the  West  of  1857,  will 
therefore  have  to  stand  on  a  basis  all  its  own,  or  fall 
to  the  ground. 

Rev.  Ten  Eyck  did  not  infringe  the  doctrines  of  pre- 
destination and  free  grace.  In  a  letter  to  the  General 
Synod  in  1823,  he  says,  "If  sinners  are  lost,  it  is  not 
owing  to  any  defect  in  the  atonement,  but  wholly  to 
their  wilful  negligence  of  Christ  and  his  salvation, 
that  while  the  atonement  was  infinitely  suflScient  to 
save  the  whole  human  family,  in  itself  considered,  none 
would,  however,  be  savingly  benefited  by  it,  but  those 
who  exercised  a  living  faith  in  Christ,  and  none  would 
believe  hut  such  as  were  given  by  the  Father,  as  a  re- 
ward of  his  obedience  unto  death.  If  any  sinners  un- 
der the  Gospel  are  lost,  it  is  entirely  due  to  their  wick- 
edness and  the  obstinate  rebellion  of  their  own  hearts, 
and  not  to  the  want  of  provision  made,  and  freely  of- 
fered in  the  Gospel." 

If  the  line  of  division  in  the  East  in  1822  lay  along 
the  lines  of  too  much  predestination  and  inability  on 
one  side,  and  too  much  human  responsibility  and 
inability  on  the  other,  they  should  have  agreed  on  a 


202  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

reasonable  correlation  of  the  two,  as  the  Fathers  of 
Dort  did,  and  as  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  desired. 
Fraeligh  should  not  have  seceded  when  most  of  the 
errors  were  his,  for  it  is  not  scriptural  to  leave  a 
church  on  the  score  of  weaknesses  in  order  to  establish 
another  church  entirely  based  on  errors. 

In  this  chapter  the  writer  has  purposely  permitted 
the  records  of  the  Seceders  to  do  most  of  the  talking, 
because  they  furnished  him  the  clearest  and  most  con- 
clusive evidence  that  the  Western  Seceders  of  1857 
were  misled  not  by  friends,  but  by  perverters  of  Re- 
formed doctrine  and  practice — perverters  who,  though 
they  later  on  inveighed  against  Labadism,  kept  right 
on  in  the  same  track  of  error,  and  republished  their 
addresses  of  1822  and  1824  in  1847  and  1852.  They 
were  on  the  wrong  track  in  1822,  and  during  their 
whole  history. 

The  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  forty  years  ago, 
was  facing  disintegration,  and  in  1890,  after  much 
negotiation  about  the  52  hymns  suited  to  the  52  divi- 
sions of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  were  allowed, 
thirteen  remaining  churches  joined  the  Christian  Re- 
formed Church  of  the  West;  but  in  1907  several  of 
these  churches  broke  away  on  account  of  unwilling- 
ness to  debar  minor  secret  societies,  like  Odd  Fellows. 

6.    One  Side  of  the  Story  Used  in  Michigan 
IN  1856-7 

But  why  reiterate  the  shortcomings  of  Christian 
brethren,  long  since  gone?  The  answer  is  found  in 
the  close  connection  of  the  Secession  of  1822  with  a 
similar  movement  in  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Michi- 
gan, in  1857,  in  which  the  allegations  of  Dr.  Fraeligh 
and  his  helpers,  formed  with  some  the  main  driving 
force.  Three  or  four  of  the  leaders  of  the  break  in 
Michigan  were  in  communication  with  the  leaders  of  the 
True  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  New  Jersey.  Gysbert 
Haan,  an  elder  in  the  Grand  Rapids  Dutch  Church, 
says  in  his  pamphlet  Stem  Eens  Belasterden,  that  he 
was  among  the  Seceders  out  East,  and  found  them 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  203 

essentially  sound  in  doctrine,  but  detected  traces  of 
Labadism  in  them.  In  April,  1856,  Haan  showed  at 
the  Classis,  a  Seceder  pamphlet — the  reprint  in  1852 
of  the  Address  of  1824 — giving  information  as  to  the 
conditions  in  the  Reformed  Church.  A  year  later  Rev. 
Klyn  of  Grand  Rapids  admitted  that  he  had  been  mis- 
led by  Haan,  who  had  shown  him  "several  letters"  from 
parties  in  the  East.  Haan  was  in  correspondence  with 
the  Seceders  in  New  Jersey  as  late  as  1859,  and  until 
he  re-seceded  back  to  the  Reformed  Church.  It  is  also 
known  that  John  Rabbers  of  New  Groningen  received 
in  1857  several  similar  letters  from  the  East.  The 
minutes  of  the  seceded  church  at  Graafschap,  March 
16,  1857  [not  1856  as  Seceders  claim] ,  speak  of  letters 
received  from  a  Rev.  Berdan,  saying  among  other 
things,  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  is  not  the  true 
church.  This  was  the  Rev.  John  Berdan  of  the  True 
Reformed  Church  at  Aquackenonck,  N.  J.,  who  had 
been  active  in  the  General  Synod  of  that  church  in 
1833,  when  the  notorious  resolutions  in  favor  of  "keep- 
ing aloof  from  all  benevolent  and  moral  societies  of 
these  times"  were  adopted.  In  a  note  to  a  copy  of  a 
letter  of  Rev.  Klyn,  written  to  the  consistory  of  Graaf- 
schap, Aug.  27,  1857,  advising  a  return  to  the  fold  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  Herman  Strabbing  says,  "This 
letter  was  not  read,  but  heretofore  when  letters  advis- 
ing secession  were  received,  they  were  always  read  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  sermon."  In  a  letter  to  Rev.  Van 
Leeuwen,  dated  April  6,  1864,  Rev.  Berdan  refers  to 
several  letters  written  by  him  "to  G.  Haan  and  others 
in  times  past,  about  our  Church,  which  some  of  you 
may  have  seen."  All  this  is  evidence  of  the  efforts  of 
the  Eastern  Seceders  to  influence  the  West. 

After  seceding  in  the  West  in  1857,  Haan,  Vanden 
Bosch  and  Krabshuis  remained  the  leaders,  and  after 
the  Synod  in  old  Holland  rejected  their  request  for 
union,  they  continued  correspondence  with  the  True 
Dutch  Church  in  New  Jersey  and  with  particular  par- 
ties in  the  old  country.  The  minutes  of  the  True  Dutch 
Church  of  1859,  p.  4,  say  that  Rev.  Berdan  had  re- 


204  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ceived  two  letters  from  G.  Haan,  stating  that  they  had 
seceded  from  the  Reformed  Church  on  account  of  er- 
rors in  doctrine,  and  that  in  Grand  Rapids,  they  had 
lost  the  church,  and  now  requested  union  with  the 
Eastern  Seceders.  In  1860  the  Synod  of  the  True 
Dutch  Church,  on  p.  6,  reports  letters  from  G.  Haan, 
approving  the  famous  "purging  Lemma  17"  of  1828, 
and  stating  further  that  the  Seceders  in  Michigan  had 
translated  and  published  the  pastoral  letter  of  the 
True  Dutch  Church  of  1858.  This  Pastoral  Letter  was 
an  indictment  of  the  Revivals  in  the  East.  After  Haan 
returned  to  the  Reformed  Church  in  1861,  Rev.  Van 
Leeuwen  re-opened  correspondence  with  the  Eastern 
Seceders  in  1864. 

Haan,  the  ring  leader  of  the  Seceders  of  1857, 
changed  front  so  often  that  his  testimony  is  not  reli- 
able, and  at  last,  under  the  spur  of  criticism  of  his 
work  in  1856-57,  he  seems  to  have  joined  the  Seceders 
again.  But  in  1861  he  repudiated  the  work  of  1856-57 
completely,  and  returned  to  the  Reformed  Church,  with 
confession  of  his  errors.  He  strenuously  objected  to 
the  unchurching  of  the  Reformed  Church  by  the  notori- 
ous Brochure,  and  he  rejected  the  secession  of  1822 
totally;  and  although  he  had  flourished  before  the 
Classis  of  1856  the  pamphlets  of  those  Seceders,  he 
wrote,  Aug.  31,  1868,  in  a  letter  still  in  existence,  "I 
told  the  American  Seceders  in  the  East  many  times 
that  I  would  not  have  dared  to  undertake  the  step 
[secession]  on  the  grounds  assigned  by  them."  This 
is  a  strange  commentary  on  Haan's  prior  claim  that 
they  had  in  1857  seceded  on  account  of  "errors  in  doc- 
trine" in  the  Reformed  Church. 

Rev.  R.  Duiker  says  in  his  Journal,  that  G.  Haan 
seceded  back  from  the  Secession  on  account  of  the  pre- 
vailing Labadistic  tendency  as  defended  by  Rev.  Van- 
den  Bosch  and  others  in  Michigan.  The  alarming 
growth  of  Antinomianism  among  the  Hollanders  of 
sixty  years  ago,  both  in  Holland  and  America,  cannot 
be  appreciated  today.  Rev.  W.  C.  Wust,  after  an  ab- 
sence of  a  few  years,  found  his  old  church  at  Giezen- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  205 

dam,  Netherlands,  in  1850,  thoroughly  Antinomian, 
and  his  people  claimed  they  were  in  Christ  so  free  from 
the  law,  that  nothing  was  forbidden  them  on  the  Lord's 
day,  while  those  who  were  without  Christ  were 
obliged  to  observe  the  Sabbath  strictly,  because  they 
were  as  yet  under  the  law.  Among  the  Seceders  of 
1822  the  same  spirit  was  prevalent,  and  in  Michigan 
there  were  several  Hollanders  who  even  claimed  that 
the  expression  "but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justi- 
fied," feom.  2:13,  should  be  expunged  from  the  Bible. 
The  Bible  was  not  orthodox  enough  for  some  of  those 
men. 

Rev.  Duiker  also  writes  that  he  talked  with  three 
representatives  of  the  Secession  Church  of  the  East, 
when  they  were  in  the  West  in  1869,  seeking  union 
with  the  Western  Seceders.  Duiker  states  it  became 
plain  to  him  that  to  these  Eastern  men  the  Western 
Seceders  were  even  too  liberal,  and  that  many  of  their 
people  were  afraid  of  joining  the  West.  Later,  Duiker 
says  these  Eastern  Seceders  "appeared  pious  men,  but 
they  admit  their  position  is  untenable,  and  they  are 
declining  terribly.  Who  can  heal  the  breach?"  These 
references  are  to  Duiker's  Journal  for  1869. 

In  1869,  several  seceded  ministers  in  Michigan 
published  a  Brochure  in  defense  of  the  secession  in 
1857,  to  which  they  added  four  documents  of  the  True 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  with  which  to  buttress  their 
claims  of  corruption  in  the  Reformed  Church.  These 
documents  all  antedated  1829 — one  was  of  1822,  one  of 
1824,  and  one  of  1825,  and  the  last  of  1827.  The  Bro- 
chure authors  did  not  date  these  supplements,  and  for 
that  reason  they  have  been  severely  criticized  for  leav- 
ing the  impression  that  they  wanted  to  make  them 
pass  as  of  recent  origin,  instead  of  as  documents  that 
were  used  to  bolster  up  a  cause  lost  45  years  before. 
The  Brochure  was  circulated  in  the  Netherlands  as 
well  as  in  Michigan,  and  for  years  its  allegations  have 
been  the  staple  of  secessionists  among  the  Hollanders. 
In  fact,  what  the  Brochure  says  about  the  conditions 
in  the  Reformed  Church,  East  and  West  since  1822,  is 


206  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

insignificant;  its  main  points  are  those  raised  in  1822- 
24.  It  is  barely  possible,  though  highly  improbable, 
that  the  causes  of  cleavage  the  immigrants  of  seventy 
years  ago  brought  with  them  from  Holland  would  have 
disappeared  in  a  few  years,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
stories  of  error  spread  by  the  Secession  of  1822-24. 
These  seeds  were  dropped  in  a  soil  prepared  in  old 
Holland  by  fifteen  years  of  suspicion,  quarrels,  and  re- 
criminations among  the  Seceders  there.  The  schism  of 
1857  cannot  be  fully  understood  without  a  knowledge 
of  its  connection  with  that  of  1822.  Haan,  the  leader 
in  Grand  Rapids,  had  with  him  at  the  Classis  of  1856, 
as  stated  before,  a  copy  of  the  Address  of  1824,  re- 
printed by  the  True  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  1852, 
besides  several  letters  from  Eastern  Seceders;  while 
in  Graafschap,  the  other  place  of  secession  in  1857, 
they  were  in  direct  correspondence  with  Rev.  Berdan 
and  others.  No  fact  in  history  is  so  well  attested  as 
the  relation  of  these  two  secessions,  and  it  is  regret- 
table that  the  Seceders  in  the  West  accepted  as  trust- 
worthy the  criticisms  on  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
from  the  most  unreliable  source  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  of  Christ — namely  from  Labadists,  who 
dreamed  of  a  perfect  church  here  below,  and  from 
Antinomians  who  violated  the  rules  of  Christian  con- 
duct because  they  had  been  absolutely  elected  to  be 
saved  regardless  of  conduct  and  law. 

These  Seceders  of  1822  were  sorely  afflicted  with 
the  three  or  more  diseases, — Labadism,  which  means 
a  spotless  church;  Antinomianism,  a  church  without 
the  moral  law ;  Independentism,  a  church  without  Rules 
for  decency  and  good  order,  and  without  the  least  re- 
gard to  the  real  unity  of  the  Christian  Church.  By 
their  claims  that  temporal  blessings  were  in  their 
nature  and  design  curses  to  the  non-elect,  etc.,  they 
rejected  the  whole  doctrine  of  common  grace.  By  their 
excommunication  of  all  other  Christian  Churches  they 
made  themselves,  to  that  extent,  nothing  less  than  a 
false  church. 

Years  afterward,  when  in  the  West  the  serious  re- 


THE      HACKENSACK      INSURRECTION  207 

suits  of  the  split  there  became  evident,  and  when  it 
was  seen  that  the  charge  of  heterodoxy  against  Van 
Raalte  and  the  Western  Dutch  churches  was  untenable, 
and  that  the  religious  differences  here  were  superficial 
and  unimportant,  the  cause  of  the  lamentable  breach 
of  Joseph  in  the  West  was  located  solely  in  the  East. 
Since  1890,  the  Western  Secession  Church  has  found 
out  that  Fraeligh  and  his  adherents  were  largely 
heterodox  Labadists  and  Antinomians ;  but  from  1869, 
in  "Brochure"  and  in  "Zamenspraak"  and  "Rechts- 
bestaan,"  these  Eastern  heretics  were  lauded  as  Re- 
formed and  Calvinistic ;  and  not  a  word  was  said  about 
the  disastrous  failure  of  that  Secession  of  1822.  And 
still,  Fraeligh's  words  are  taken  in  the  West  as  evi- 
dence of  heterodoxy  at  New  Brunswick  and  the  East, 
and  continually  the  Western  Hollanders  are  regaled 
with  the  same  story.  It  is  therefore  high  time  that  the 
West  should  know  that  in  1829  the  Secession  of  1822 
broke  in  two,  that  in  1832  Rev.  Paulison  led  a  second 
secession  from  that  Secession  of  1822,  and  that  the 
minutes  of  what  is  left  of  the  original  secession  after 
1829,  give  us  the  strongest  evidence  that  that  seces- 
sion was  corrupt  before  it  was  born.  All  those  clergy- 
men who  joined  Fraeligh  in  1822  were  opposed  to  the 
Standards  of  the  Reformed  Church,  wanted  to  change 
the  Catechism,  and  believed  that  the  Confession, 
Canons,  and  Rules  of  Dort  were  really  unscriptural. 
Further  these  minutes  show,  and  the  West  should  know 
it,  that  in  its  essence  the  Secession  of  1822  was  nothing 
short  of  an  attempt  to  dictate  to  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  what  is  Reformed  doctrine  and  practice  by  men 
like  H.  V.  Wyckoflf,  Amerman,  and  others,  who  were 
not  Reformed,  either  in  doctrine  or  practice;  and  that 
that  Secession  was  nothing  less  than  an  effort  to  force 
on  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  the  system  that  cor- 
rect Reformed  doctrine  and  practice  could  be  dictated 
by  the  "predestinated,"  "foreordained,"  and  "elected" 
bums,  "black  devils"  of  Charlestown,  Ovid,  Schraalen- 
bergh  and  Hackensack. 

A  Calvinist  is  not  a  fatalist,  and  the  Synod  of  Dort 


208  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

sounded  terrible  warnings  against  just  what  Fraeligh 
did — magnifying  the  doctrine  of  Election  so  much  that 
practical  religion  died  out  among  many  of  his  follow- 
ers. That  Secession  of  1822,  by  ignoring  the  law  of 
love,  and  by  deifying  its  conception  of  pure  doctrine, 
and  thus  losing  the  spirit  of  truth,  placed  itself  in  the 
cemetery  years  before  it  was  dead.  Doctrine  without 
charity  is  dead,  and  the  happy  combination  of  doc- 
trine and  life  is  not  usually  found  in  the  religious  wars 
of  the  kind  involved  in  the  Rebellion  of  1822.  Those 
Seceders  insisted  on  the  doctrine  of  election,  but  they 
failed  to  show  the  evidences  of  their  own  election. 

What  a  dark  light  was  lit  at  Schraalenbergh  in 
1822,  and  what  a  cold  fire  was  kindled  there.  Those 
Seceders  erected  an  image  of  God  which  they  called 
"pure  doctrine,"  and  they  worshipped  this  image,  while 
the  spirit  of  Christianity — love  to  God  and  to  man — 
was  maltreated,  quenched,  and  dwarfed,  until  it  was 
starved  and  frozen  to  death  in  their  midst. 


DR.    MILLEDOLER    ON    THE    SECESSION    OF    1822  209 


XIII.    DR.  MILLEDOLER  ON  THE 
SECESSION  OF  1822 


A  DISCOURSE  delivered  by  appointment  of  the 
General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the  church 
at  Hackensack,  N.  J.,  before  the  Classis  of  Paramus, 
and  a  Commission  of  Synod,  appointed  to  confer  with 
said  Classis,  July  6,  1824,  by  Philip  Milledoler,  D.  D., 
one  of  the  Collegiate  Ministers  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Discourse 

I  Corinthians,  1 :10.  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
by  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  all  speak 
the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions  among 
you;  but  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the 
same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment. 

After  speaking  on  the  text.  Dr.  Milledoler  passed 
on  to  a  consideration  of  the  secession,  and  spoke  in 
part  as  follows : 

All  this  is  exemplified  in  our  own  experience,  and 
even  in  the  present  situation  of  our  own  Reformed 
Church.  To  recent  events  that  have  transpired  in  that 
church,  my  hearers  are  no  strangers.  A  number  of 
ministers  and  congregations,  as  you  all  know,  have 
seen  fit  to  secede  from  her  communion,  and  to  erect  an 
independent  standard. 

The  reasons  assigned  for  that  secession  are,  that 
the  great  body  of  the  Dutch  Church  has,  in  a  number 
of  cardinal  points,  departed  from  the  standards  of  her 
original  faith,  and  has  substituted  in  their  place  an- 
other gospel,  or  doctrines,  called  Hopkinsian ;  and  that 
connected  with  this  defection,  there  is  such  a  departure 


210  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

from  sound  discipline,  as  can  no  longer  be  tolerated. 
These  charges,  if  true,  are  certainly  very  serious.  Let 
us  examine  them: 

The  first  is,  that  the  great  body  of  the  Dutch 
Church  has,  in  a  number  of  cardinal  points,  departed 
from  the  Word  of  God  and  the  standards  of  her  origi- 
nal faith,  and  has  substituted  in  their  place  another 
gospel,  or  doctrines  call  Hopkinsian.  The  first  subject 
of  inquiry  under  this  complaint  is,  what  are  those  car- 
dinal points  from  which  our  members  have  departed? 
So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain  them,  they 
consist  principally  in  the  doctrines  of  definite  atone- 
ment, and  human  inability.  Now  I  would  meekly  yet 
firmly  inquire,  where  is  the  proof  of  such  departure? 
Has  the  general  synod  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
or  have  any  of  its  inferior  judicatories,  disclaimed  at 
any  time  her  confession  of  faith,  or  the  Heidelberg 
catechism?  Has  anything  appeared  in  the  minutes  of 
general  synod  at  any  time,  which  would  either  directly 
or  indirectly  warrant  such  a  charge?  Has  not  that 
church  uniformly  maintained  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
eternal  election,  original  sin,  grace  in  conversion,  jus- 
tification by  faith,  and  the  saints'  perseverance?  Are 
not  these  doctrines  under  her  immediate  inspection  and 
control,  publicly,  zealously,  and  constantly  inculcated 
by  the  professors  of  her  Theological  College,  upon  the 
youth  committed  to  their  care?  When  regular  com- 
plaint has  been  made  of  the  defection  of  any  of  her 
ministers,  has  the  general  synod  ever  refused  to  in- 
vestigate the  charge,  or  to  act  upon  its  merits? 

At  the  last  meeting  of  that  reverend  body,  did  they 
not,  among  other  steps  taken  to  guard  the  purity  of 
their  churches,  fully,  and  unanimously  disavow  those 
false  doctrines  with  which  they  have  been  charged? 

Let  us  hear  the  voice  of  that  synod  from  their  own 
minutes : 

"Whereas  certain  publications  have  issued  from  the 
press,  and  have  been  circulated  in  many  parts  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  denying  the  doctrines  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  of  the  total  in- 


DR.    MILLEDOLER    ON    THE    SECESSION    OF    1822  211 

ability  and  depravity  of  man,  of  the  definite  nature  of 
the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  a  sacrifice  for 
the  sins  of  His  people,  and  the  usefulness  and  binding 
obligations  of  creeds  and  confessions.  And  whereas 
such  publications  are  calculated  to  foment  the  unhappy 
spirit  now  existing  in  many  parts  of  the  church,  to  in- 
crease the  dissension  of  its  members,  and  alienate  still 
further  the  minds  of  the  adherents  of  the  secession; 
and  whereas  it  is  deemed  important  that  the  General 
Synod  at  its  present  session  should  express  a  definite 
opinion  on  these  subjects  —  therefore.  Resolved,  that 
while  this  synod  totally  disapprove  of  the  late  seces- 
sion, and  of  all  the  means  that  have  been  employed  to 
promote  it,  they  do  decidedly  disown  and  condemn  any 
such  doctrines  before  recited,  set  forth  in  such  pub- 
lications, and  the  doctrines  commonly  called  Hopkin- 
sian,  as  being  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
standards  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church;  and  at  the 
same  time,  as  decidedly  condemn  the  course  pursued  by 
the  ministers  and  members  of  the  late  secession,  who 
by  their  publications  and  conversation,  and  other  meas- 
ures, have  endeavored  to  establish  the  belief  that  such 
are  the  views  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  which 
views  this  synod  unequivocally  pronounce  altogether 
calumnious." 

After  such  a  declaration  as  this,  supported  by  col- 
lateral testimony  so  ample  and  decisive,  with  what  face 
or  colour  of  truth  can  the  charge  of  her  defection  be 
maintained  ? 

If  any  of  her  ministers  have,  at  any  time,  avowed 
principles  hostile  to  these  declarations,  upon  them,  and 
upon  them  only,  be  the  dishonor  and  responsibility  of 
of  so  doing. 

Neither  civil  nor  ecclesiastical  courts  can,  at  all 
times,  correct  all  that  is  amiss.  The  idea  of  absolute 
perfection,  therefore,  in  human  institutions,  or  even 
in  divine,  so  far  as  they  are  administered  by  men,  is 
out  of  the  question  and  it  is  folly  and  arrogance  to 
expect  it. 

With  respect  to  the  charge  of  defection  in  discipline. 


212  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

we  can  only  say,  that  being,  so  far  as  we  know,  unsup- 
ported by  particular  specifications,  it  is  impossible  to 
tell  where  or  how  to  meet  it,  and  we  can  only  add,  that 
if  it  will  apply  to  some  of  our  churches,  it  will  certainly 
not  apply  to  others ;  that  wherever  this  evil  exists,  it  is 
much  to  be  deplored,  and  ought  to  be  corrected;  but 
that  if,  in  the  administration  of  even-handed  discipline 
on  a  general  scale,  we  fall  behind  our  sister  churches 
in  this  country,  we  are  wholly  unconscious  of  the  fact. 

Now  if  these  things  are  so,  is  it  not  unreasonable, 
is  it  not  untender,  is  it  not  a  violation  of  every  law  of 
righteousness,  as  well  as  Christian  courtesy,  for  a  part 
of  such  a  body  to  break  away  from  their  Christian 
brethren  as  if  they  were  infected  with  a  moral  pesti- 
lence ? 

Is  this  to  avoid  division,  or  is  this  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  spirit?  If  these  brethren  felt  themselves 
aggrieved,  ought  they  not  to  have  exercised  more 
patience  and  forbearance  ?  If  evils  existed,  should  they 
not  with  more  long  suffering  have  sought  their  re- 
moval, and  have  been  more  active  in  effecting  it?  If 
truth  was  in  danger,  was  it  right,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  this  case,  to  weaken  it  by  desertion? 
Could  these  men  abandon  to  ruin,  as  they  supposed, 
that  vine  under  which  their  fathers  reposed  with  so 
miuch  safety  and  delight?  But  what  do  I  say?  Will 
God  abandon  this  vine?  Hath  it  not  been  planted  with 
his  own  right  hand;  watered  with  prayers  and  tears, 
and  nursed  with  the  dews  of  Heaven?  Surely  chas- 
tisement is  not  abandonment.  Perhaps  some  trial  has 
been  needed  to  awake  us  out  of  sleep,  to  test  our  fidel- 
ity, and  to  make  our  lamps  burn  brighter.  As  for  God, 
He  is  a  Rock — His  way  is  perfect,  and  there  is  no  un- 
righteousness in  Him;  though  He  frown,  yet  will  He 
remember  us,  though  He  slay  us,  yet  will  we  trust  in 
Him. 

In  His  own  best  time  will  He  vindicate  our  cause, 
and  bring  forth  our  righteousness  as  the  light,  and  our 
judgment  as  the  noon  day. 

In  the  meantime,  and  although  on  our  own  account 


DR.    MILLEDOLER   ON    THE    SECESSION    OF    1822  213 

we  do  not  fear  the  issue  of  this  matter,  we  would  en- 
treat our  offending  brethren  to  pause,  and  to  ponder 
on  what  they  have  done,  and  are  doing. 

The  least  reflection  in  the  world  will  convince  them 
how  easy  it  is  for  any  person  to  destroy,  and  how  diffi- 
cult it  is,  in  some  instances,  for  the  wisest  to  restore. 

The  temples  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Ephesus  were 
consumed  in  a  very  few  hours ;  and  the  calamities  of  a 
single  night  may  destroy  the  labor  of  ages.  The  seeds 
of  discord  sown  in  a  few  unhappy  hours,  may  be  yield- 
ing their  baneful  fruits  from  generation  to  generation, 
down  to  the  conflagration  of  the  globe. 

Is  it  a  light  thing,  in  the  same  house,  to  set  altar 
against  altar,  and  to  poison  the  springs  of  intercourse 
of  the  nearest  and  dearest  connections  ? 

Is  there,  in  this  case,  no  redeeming  spirit?  Is  this 
breach  wide  as  the  sea,  that  it  cannot  be  healed  ?  Would 
to  God  that  our  brethren  would  once  more  turn  their 
eyes  toward  the  city  of  our  solemnities,  and  that  we 
could  hear  them  saying,  "Peace  be  within  thy  walls, 
and  prosperity  within  thy  palaces." 

This  whole  matter  we  commit  to  him  that  judgeth 
righteously,  and  hope  and  pray  for  just  that  consum- 
mation that  shall  be  for  His  own  glory. 

In  concluding  this  discourse  I  would  inquire  breth- 
ren, whether  anything  more  can  be  done  on  our  part  to 
arrest  the  further  progress  of  this  evil?  We  have  vin- 
dicated our  own  character,  and  have  published  our 
principles  to  the  world.  Will  any  spirit  of  conciliation 
following  it,  frank,  generous,  and  godlike,  be  of  use 
to  change  the  present  aspect  of  affairs  in  this  region? 

I  believe  and  am  sure  that  you  are  entirely  pre- 
pared for  the  exercise  of  such  a  spirit.  Should,  how- 
ever, the  spirit  of  conciliation  be  rejected,  then  indeed, 
whatever  pain  it  may  cost  us,  we  must  do  our  duty. 

We  cannot  stand  by  unmoved  and  see  the  body  of 
Christ  dismembered,  nor  can  we  suffer  the  inheritance 
of  our  God  to  be  laid  waste  without  entering  against 
it  our  most  solemn  protest. 

May  God  imbue  our  minds  with  all  wisdom,  re- 


214         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

plenish  our  hearts  with  all  grace,  and  in  His  holy 
providence  so  smile  upon  and  direct  our  efforts,  that 
we  may  be  the  honored  instruments  in  His  hand  of  do- 
ing much  good ;  and  to  His  holy  name  be  the  everlast- 
ing glory.    Amen. 

When  Dr.  Milledoler  delivered  the  above  sermon  at 
Hackensack,  July  6,  1824,  and  when  the  report  given 
in  the  following  chapter  was  written,  the  Seceders  in 
the  East  had  not  yet  published  their  manifesto  of  1824, 
in  which  they  endeavored  to  set  up  specific  instances 
of  heterodoxy  of  certain  leaders  of  the  Reformed 
Church.  But,  in  1824,  also,  these  Seceders  had  not  yet 
written  into  history  their  infamous  quarrels  and  here- 
sies of  1822-32,  in  view  of  which  the  language  Mille- 
doler applied  to  them  in  1824  must  be  considered  alto- 
gether too  mild.  But,  however  gentle  in  his  expressions 
in  1824,  Milledoler  already  knew  that  the  Seceders 
themselves  were  more  at  fault  in  neglect  of  discipline 
than  was  the  Reformed  Church,  that  they  were  "as 
deficient  as  almost  any  of  their  neighbors,"  so  that  he 
told  them,  "Physician,  heal  thyself."  And  how  proph- 
etic were  the  words  of  Milledoler  when  he  told  the 
Seceders  that  "the  calamities  of  a  single  night  may 
destroy  the  labor  of  ages,"  and  that  "the  seeds  of  dis- 
cord sown  in  a  few  unhappy  hours,  may  be  yielding 
their  baneful  fruits  from  generation  to  generation,"  as 
was  actually  the  case  in  Bergen  county  for  years. 
"Nor,"  continues  he,  "can  the  leaders  of  the  Secession, 
after  having  scattered  their  firebrands,  tell  where  these 
may  lodge,  or  what  evil  they  will  produce."  Some  of 
these  firebrands  lodged  in  the  woods  of  Michigan  in 
1857,  and  started  the  fires  of  discord  there. 

Dr.  Milledoler  succeeded  Dr.  Livingston  as  presi- 
dent of  Rutgers  College  and  as  professor  of  theology, 
1825-41.  Dr.  Corwin,  Manual  (1902),  p.  629,  says, 
"The  great  Dr.  Mason  once  said  there  were  three  men 
who  prayed  as  if  they  were  immediately  inspired  from 
heaven.  One  was  Rowland  Hill,  the  other  was  a  cer- 
tain layman,  and  the  third  was  Dr.  Milledoler.  Sprague, 
in  his  excellent  Annals  of  the  AmeHcan  Reformed  Pul- 


DR.    MILLEDOLER    ON    THE    SECESSION    OF    1822  215 

pit,  p.  110-1,  says,  "Such  prayers  as  his  [Dr.  Mille- 
doler's],  I  never  heard.  They  subdued — they  rapt — 
they  brought  you  in  the  presence-chamber  of  Heaven, 
where  a  saint  was  pleading  and  a  child  of  God  was 
holding  communion  with  his  father,  and  a  sweet  awe 
fell  upon  you  as  you  were  led  to  the  mercy-seat,  and 
saw  the  Divine  Mediator  there,  and  the  propitiated 
Answerer  of  prayer.  It  was  once  said  to  me  by  an 
eminent  pastor  of  this  city  [New  York] ,  that  it  seemed 
to  him  "as  if  Dr.  Milledoler  had  been  given  to  the 
Church  for  the  express  purpose  of  teaching  ministers 
how  to  pray.  I  could  imagine  nothing  more  appropri- 
ate or  impressive  [than  Milledoler's  prayers] — there 
was  no  appearance  even  of  premeditation — it  seemed 
as  if  he  had  only  to  open  his  lips,  and  a  stream  of  the 
purest,  sublimest  devotion  came  gushing  forth." 

Dr.  Milledoler  was  the  pastor  of  the  Rutgers  Street 
Presbyterian  Church  in  New  York  city,  1805-13,  dur- 
ing the  time  that  the  Hopkinsian  controversy  was  rag- 
ing there.  He  stubbornly  combatted  the  Hopkinsian 
innovations,  and  in  1813  accepted  a  call  to  the  Collegi- 
ate Reformed  Church,  largely  on  account  of  the  divi- 
sions in  the  Presbyterian  Church  caused  by  that  con- 
troversy. Sprague's  Annals,  p.  107.  It  is  remarkable 
that  both  Drs.  Ferris  and  Milledoler  left  the  Presby- 
terian Church  on  account  of  Hopkinsianism  prevailing 
there,  and  that  they  joined  the  Reformed  Church  to 
escape  the  contagion.  These  two  uncompromising  foes 
of  Hopkinsianism  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  later, 
when  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  from  the  start, 
took  the  strongest  ground  against  the  Seceders  of  1822. 
This  fact  furnishes  the  strongest  evidence  that  the 
charge  of  Hopkinsian  errors  brought  against  the  Re- 
formed Church  by  Dr.  Fraeligh  and  the  Seceders,  was 
practically  without  merit.  In  fact.  Dr.  Ferris  wrote 
the  Synod  resolutions  against  the  Seceders  in  1824, 
and  Milledoler  preached  and  reported  against  them, 


216         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  openly  accused  them  of  collecting  all  the  heresies 
in  the  calendar,  labeling  them  Hopkinsianism,  and  then 
hurling  them  broadcast  without  discrimination  as  here- 
sies in  the  Reformed  Church.  It  is  evident  that  Dr. 
Milledoler  was  more  afraid  of  the  Antinomianism  of 
the  Fraeligh  faction  than  of  any  other  heresy. 


REPORT  ON  THE  SECESSION  OF  1822       217 


XIV.    REPORT  ON  THE  SECESSION 
OF  1822 


ADDRESS  of  a  Commission  of  General  Synod  to 
the  Ministers,  Officers,  and  other  Members  of 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  especially  to 
the  Ministers  and  Churches  of  the  Secession. 

ADDRESS 

1824 

Brethren — When  divisions  occur  in  a  church  which 
produce  unsanctified  passions,  and  end  in  the  violent 
rending  asunder  of  Christian  bonds  and  fellowship, 
they  ought,  like  the  breaking  out  and  raging  of  fire  in 
a  populous  city,  to  be  regarded  as  a  public  calamity; 
and  at  such  times  it  becomes  the  duty  of  every  person, 
and  especially  of  those  more  immediately  connected 
with  such  church,  to  do  every  thing  in  their  power  to 
check,  and,  if  possible,  to  arrest  its  devastating  course. 
Such  division  has  unhappily  occurred  in  our  own  Re- 
formed Church;  and  the  time  has  arrived  when  her 
members  are  called  to  institute  a  serious  inquiry  into 
its  origin,  its  progress,  its  results,  and  into  the  duty 
of  those  who  either  participate  in,  or  witness,  its  move- 
ments. 

A  small  number  of  ministers,  elders  and  deacons, 
members  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  convened  at 
Schraalenburgh,  N.  J.,  in  the  autumn  of  1822,  for  the 
purpose  of  organizing  themselves  into  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal body,  entirely  distinguished  from  and  independent 
of  said  church. 

We  are  sorry  to  recognize  at  the  head  of  that  seces- 
sion a  minister  of  the  gospel,  venerable  for  his  years 


218  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  standing;  one  in  whom  the  church  had  formerly 
reposed  high  confidence,  and  to  whom  under  God  she 
was  rather  entitled  to  look  up  as  her  counsellor  and  de- 
fender, than  to  contemplate  as  her  accuser  and  judge. 
With  this  gentleman  were  associated  several  minis- 
ters not  in  good  standing,  for  they  were  then  under 
sentence  of  deposition  from  the  sacred  office.  By  them 
and  their  associates,  an  instrument  of  writing  was 
proposed,  adopted,  and  subscribed,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  state,  and  to  justify,  the  reasons  of  their  seces- 
sion.   On  that  instrument  we  must  offer  some  remarks. 

The  occasion  of  that  address  is  too  serious  to  admit 
an  examination  of  its  merits  as  a  literary  production ; 
we  shall  therefore  only  generally  observe,  that  for  the 
want  of  accurate  arrangement  of  its  matter,  we  have 
had  no  small  trouble  in  collating  and  exhibiting  its  con- 
tents in  their  proper  places. 

To  notice  everything  contained  in  that  instrument, 
would  indeed  be  unprofitable ;  we  shall,  therefore,  prin- 
cipally confine  ourselves  to  its  more  general  outlines. 

After  an  introduction,  showing  in  what  case  seces- 
sion from  a  corrupt  church  may  be  justified,  and  ap- 
plying the  whole  stream  of  observation,  without  jus- 
tice or  mercy,  to  our  Reformed  Church,  the  authors, 
that  they  may  fasten  upon  her  the  charge  of  such  cor- 
ruption, proceed  to  lay  down  the  marks  of  a  true 
church,  in  the  following  particulars,  viz.: 

1.  That  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  preached 
therein. 

2.  That  she  maintain  the  pure  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  as  instituted  by  Christ. 

3.  That  church  discipline  be  exercised  in  punish- 
ing of  sin. 

To  these  are  added,  that  all  things  must  be  man- 
aged according  to  the  pure  Word  of  God;  all  things 
contrary  thereto  rejected;  and  Jesus  Christ  acknowl- 
edged as  the  only  head  of  the  church. 


REPORT    ON     THE     SECESSION     OF     1822  219 

To  the  first  three  marks,  and  that  part  of  the  last 
which  requires  that  Jesus  Christ  be  acknowledged  as 
the  only  head  of  the  church,  we  do,  with  the  authors 
of  this  instrument,  most  cordially  subscribe.  But  they 
go  further,  and  demand  absolute  perfection  as  an  addi- 
tional mark ; — from  this  we  are  constrained  to  dissent. 
The  experience  of  the  whole  world,  nay,  the  Word  of 
God  itself,  painfully,  yet  incontrovertibly  proves,  that 
all  human,  and  even  divine  institutions,  so  far  as  they 
are  administered  by  men,  are  imperfect  and  fallible; 
and  for  any  man,  or  set  of  men,  on  earth,  to  arrogate 
to  themselves  infallibility,  betrays  both  ignorance  and 
presumption.  This  mark,  if  rigidly  construed,  as  ap- 
pears to  be  intended,  would  not  leave  a  single  true 
church  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  the  earth. 

But  let  us  now  see  how  these  marks  are  applied  to 
our  church,  to  show  her  apostasy. 

"A  serious  attention,"  say  they,  on  page  6  of  their 
printed  proceedings,  "to  the  state  of  that  body  called 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  as  it  now  exists,  and  com- 
paring it  with  these  marks,  will  discover  a  departure 
of  that  body  from  its  adopted  standards."  And  they 
say  again,  on  page  9,  "We  now  turn  to  a  statement  of 
melancholy  facts,  in  relation  to  the  judicatures  of  that 
body,  from  which  it  will  be  seen,  that  it  has  lost  its 
soundness  for  doctrine,  and  become  deeply  tainted  with 
error." 

And  what  are  these  facts?  We  seek  them  in  vain 
in  the  place  where  they  ought  to  have  appeared;  but 
near  the  close  of  the  instrument,  we  find  them  inter- 
mingled and  entangled  with  other  matters  in  deep  con- 
fusion. 

The  first  that  is  adduced,  is  the  case  of  the  Rev. 
Conrad  Ten  Eyck. 

That  gentleman  was  charged  with  having  advocated 
the  doctrine  of  general  atonement ;  that  charge  was,  in 
the  first  instance,  brought  before  the  Classis  of  Mont- 
gomery, and  eventually  before  General  Synod  in  1820. 
By  that  Synod  Mr.  Ten  Eyck's  opinions,  as  expressed 
in  his  printed  defense,  were  decidedly  disapproved  and 


220  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

condemned,  and  he  received  their  public  reproof.  But, 
inasmuch  as  from  his  explanation — that  though  the 
atonement  of  Christ  was,  in  itself,  of  infinite  value,  yet 
that  he  died  savingly  only  for  the  elect — and  as  from 
other  expressions,  and  his  whole  deportment,  on  that 
occasions.  Synod  had  reason  to  believe  that  he  was 
conscious  of  having  acted  unadvisedly  and  imprudent- 
ly, they  did  judge  that  there  was  not  sufl^icient  ground 
for  his  suspension.  If  Mr.  Ten  Eyck  deceived  the 
Synod,  as  has  been  asserted,  then  he  may  also,  in  the 
same  manner,  have  previously  deceived  the  Classis  of 
Montgomery;  but  if  Mr.  Ten  Eyck,  and  a  majority  of 
the  Classis  of  Montgomery,  concurred  in  deceiving  the 
Synod,  upon  them,  and  upon  them  only,  lies  the  dis- 
honor of  so  doing.  If  Mr.  Ten  Eyck  has  relapsed  into 
his  former  course,  he  is  still  accountable;  but  as  no 
representation  of  that  fact,  if  it  exists,  has  ever  been 
brought  before  Synod,  the  Reformed  Church,  as  such, 
certainly  stands  acquitted,  in  this  instance,  from  all 
blame.  If  Synod,  after  what  has  passed  in  the  case 
of  Mr.  Ten  Eyck,  refused  to  arraign  before  them  his 
alleged  associates,  there  was  sufficient  reason  for  so 
doing;  for  if  Mr.  Ten  Eyck  himself  was  not  convicted 
before  Synod,  it  would  have  been  perfect  trifling  to 
have  arraigned  before  them  his  associates. 

The  charge  against  Synod,  of  tolerating  and  coun- 
tenancing men  who  advocate  the  doctrines  of  indefinite 
atonement  and  natural  ability,  can  no  more  be  sus- 
tained than  those  which  have  preceded  it. 

There  are,  so  far  as  we  know,  but  few  individuals 
in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  who  are  supposed  to 
incline  to  those  doctrines,  and  these  appear  cautious 
of  avowing  it.  Must  the  church  then  be  driven  to  the 
alternative,  of  either  organizing  a  court  of  inquisition 
to  try  her  suspected  members,  or  be  herself  calumni- 
ated as  apostate?  Has  she  not  warned  her  people 
again  and  again  against  these  very  errors,  and  un- 
equivocally and  fully  condemned  such  errors?  And  if, 
like  her  Lord,  she  has  exercised  long  suffering  and 
forbearance,  is  she  therefore  worthy  of  the  foul  names 


REPORT    ON     THE     SECESSION     OF     1822  221 

applied  to  her  of  "harlot  and  adulteress?"  But  she 
has  rejected  a  motion,  it  is  said,  for  calling  a  general 
convention  to  define  her  doctrine  of  the  atonement; 
but  can  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  acknowledge  that 
her  doctrines  are  so  obscure  as  to  need  such  definition  ? 
And  if  such  convention  were  called,  what  could  they 
possibly  say,  that  would  be  more  full,  or  more  explicit, 
than  is  already  stated  in  her  standards? 

The  last  charge  brought  against  our  church,  under 
this  head,  in  this  list  of  charges,  is  that  of  deposing 
her  ministers  for  no  other  crime,  but  that  they  could 
not  in  conscience  associate  with  men  who  advocate 
Hopkinsian  errors.  The  whole  truth  of  this  matter  is, 
that  the  ministers  alluded  to  were  deposed  from  their 
offices,  not  for  maintaining  truth  against  error,  but  for 
insubordination  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the 
church;  and  for  such  insubordination,  too,  as  placed 
their  best  friends  in  a  situation  in  which  it  was  impos- 
sible for  them  to  justify  their  conduct.  Had  they  suf- 
fered, acting  correctly  in  the  cause  of  righteousness, 
there  are  many,  very  many,  that  would  have  shielded 
them  from  harm ;  but  in  the  course  they  saw  fit  to  pur- 
sue, it  could  not  possibly  be  done.  They  have  reaped  the 
fruits  of  their  own  doings,  and  must  principally  blame 
themselves  for  all  the  consequences  that  have  ensued. 
Those  who  will  read  the  minutes  of  General  Synod  for 
the  years  1820,  will  perceive  the  source  of  all  the  evils 
in  this  case,  now  charged  upon  the  church  at  large. 

Intermingled  with  the  charges  we  have  now  con- 
sidered, and  which  concern  the  alleged  heresy  of  our 
church,  there  are  others  which  relate  to  supposed  in- 
correct decisions  in  different  judicatories  of  the  church, 
on  various  subjects,  and  at  different  times,  which,  as 
they  have  little  or  no  bearing  on  the  point  before  us, 
we  shall  pass  in  silence. 

The  second  mark  laid  down  in  this  instrument  as 
designating  the  true  church,  is,  that  she  maintain  the 
pure  administration  of  the  sacraments,  as  instituted 
by  Christ ;  but  as  this  mark  in  the  discussion  is  blended 


222  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

with  the  third  concerning  discipline,  we  shall  take 
them,  and  answer  them  together. 

Some  of  the  charges  of  corruption  brought  forward 
against  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  under  these 
heads,  are  the  following : 

"That  there  is  a  prevailing  prostitution  of  the 
sacraments,  by  almost  indiscriminate  administration, 
without  any  regard  to  qualification;  that  most  of  the 
churches  are  composed  of  members,  the  most  of  whom 
are  so  far  from  manifesting  evidences  of  true  faith 
and  piety,  that  they  are  not  only  ignorant  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  contained  in 
their  standards,  and  in  which  they  pride  themselves, 
but  are  their  avowed  enemies;  that  parents  present 
children  for  baptism,  not  only  without  knowledge  of 
the  nature  of  that  ordinance,  or  evidence  of  faith  or 
piety,  or  even  of  morality,  but  often  such  as  are  grossly 
wicked ;  that  whole  churches,  with  perhaps  a  few  soli- 
tary exceptions,  are  composed  of  ignorant,  prayerless, 
wicked,  baptized  members,  who  are,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, admitted  to  sealing  ordinances,  and  recog- 
nized as  members  in  full  communion;  that  ministers 
attempting  reformation  are  branded  with  opprobrious 
names,  hated,  despitefully  used,  driven  away  or  starved, 
whilst  those  who  please  the  ignorant,  the  vulgar,  and 
the  wicked,  are  held  in  popular  esteem,  and  well  pro- 
vided for;  that  the  judicatories  of  the  church  are  made 
up  for  the  most  part  of  ignorant  and  impious  men, 
who  have  not  the  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes;  and 
that  many  young  men  destitute  of  the  renewing  grace 
of  God,  and  deriving  their  notions  of  religion  from 
what  they  have  been  wont  to  see  and  hear  in  the  lapsed 
churches,  betake  themselves  to  the  study  of  divinity, 
and  obtain  admittance  to  the  office  of  the  sacred  min- 
istry." 

This  is  a  small  specimen  of  the  spirit  that  reigns  in 
that  production  under  these  heads;  and  we  are  here 
presented  with  a  long  series  of  assertions  and  charges, 
without  specification  or  proof,  from  which  every  sensi- 
ble mind,  and  every  feeling  heart,  must  recoil  with 


REPORT    ON     THE     SECESSION     OF     1822  223 

horror.  Imperfection  is  indeed  stamped  upon  our  holi- 
est things ;  and  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  like  other 
churches,  has  many  things  to  deplore.  But  here  are 
things  charged  to  her,  without  discrimination  and 
without  restraint,  so  bitter,  so  extravagant,  so  over- 
charged, and  every  way  so  incredible,  that  they  carry 
their  own  refutation  upon  the  very  face  of  them.  As- 
sertions like  these,  deserve  only,  and  need  only,  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  to  be  answered  by  denial 
of  their  truth ;  and  if  any  person  will  read  that  produc- 
tion, from  near  the  close  of  the  sixth  to  the  nineth 
page,  and  does  not  perceive  the  justice  of  our  remarks, 
we  can  only  say  that  we  certainly  do  not  envy  either 
his  intellect  or  his  feelings. 

Charges  like  these  come,  indeed,  with  very  ill  grace 
from  those  who  have  been,  perhaps,  as  deficient  as 
almost  any  of  their  neighbors,  in  some  of  those  very 
things  for  which  they  now  criminate  them.  Physician, 
heal  thyself,  will  certainly  apply  here  with  emphasis; 
and  if  these  men  had  first  put  their  own  houses  in 
order,  they  might  have  labored  with  much  better  face, 
and  with  much  greater  effect,  in  the  cause  of  general 
reformation. 

We  have  now  closed  the  list  of  "melancholy  facts," 
adduced  to  show  the  extreme  corruption  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church;  and  what,  when  stripped  of 
verbosity  and  unsupported  allegation,  is  the  amount  of 
testimony  that  remains  ?  It  may  all  be  easily  and  faith- 
fully presented  to  view,  in  the  following  short  sum- 
mary, viz. : 

That  some  ministers  and  members  in  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  are  believed  to  incline  to  the  doctrines 
of  general  atonement  and  natural  ability ;  that  she  has, 
from  time  to  time,  protested  against  these  and  similar 
heresies,  but  has  not  done  all  that  she  might  have 
done  to  counteract  them,  and  that  there  is  room,  and, 
in  some  places,  perhaps,  much  room,  for  the  more  faith- 
ful exercise  of  discipline. 

When  these  charges  are  analyzed,  this  appears  to 
be  about  the  substance  of  every  thing  they  contain,  and 


224  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

surely  of  everything  that  is  susceptible  of  proof. 

Now,  supposing  all  this  to  be  true,  is  it  sufficient  to 
justify  secession?  May  not  similar  things  be  said,  and 
with  equal  force,  of  any  other  church  in  our  country, 
and  perhaps  of  any  other  church  in  the  world? 

We  have  confined  our  remarks  to  the  instrument  of 
separation,  because  it  is  a  kind  of  official  document,  and 
may  fairly  be  considered  as  covering  the  whole  ground 
of  objection.  As  for  minor  productions  on  the  sub- 
ject, we  consider  them  as  not  requiring  notice. 

Yet  these  things,  as  thus  stated  and  answered,  are 
considered  by  the  secession  as  sufficient  to  justify  such 
secession  with  all  its  horrible  consequences. 

We  use  strong  language  in  describing  these  conse- 
quences; but  if  the  effects  produced  by  the  secession 
on  some  of  our  churches  be  considered,  it  will  not  be 
found,  we  apprehend,  too  strong  for  the  occasion. 
Nothing  effectual  can  be  done  by  the  leaders  of  this 
secession,  unless  they  can  persuade  the  people  to  go 
with  them ;  and  it  will  be  difficult  to  persuade  the  peo- 
ple to  go  with  them,  unless  they  can  be  induced  to  be- 
lieve that  the  state  of  our  church  is  so  deplorable  and 
so  hopeless  that  no  good  man  can  any  longer  remain  in 
it.  Now  here  arises  the  great  temptation,  in  some  in- 
stances, to  conceal  the  truth,  and  in  others  to  misrep- 
resent and  distort  occurring  facts  and  circumstances. 
Two  very  lamentable  instances  of  this  are  of  recent 
date. 

General  Synod  having  been  informed  in  their  late 
secession  [June,  1824]  at  New  York,  that  a  public 
meeting  of  the  congregation  at  West  New  Hempsted 
had  been  called  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  a  separa- 
tion of  that  church  from  their  jurisdiction,  appointed 
a  committee  to  attend  said  meeting,  with  certified  com- 
munications from  Synod  of  facts  highly  important  to 
be  known  by  that  people  before  they  proceeded  to  act. 
When  the  commissioners  arrived  at  the  spot,  they  found 
a  majority  of  the  consistory  determined  to  prevent 
such  communication,  and  it  was  not  without  great  dif- 
ficulty and  persevering  interference    of   some    of   the 


REPORT    ON     THE     SECESSION     OF     1822  225 

spirited  and  independent  members  of  that  church,  that 
they  could  even  have  a  hearing.  The  commissioners 
found  also,  that  a  printed  paper,  detailing  some  of  the 
most  extravagant  speculations  of  Hopkinsianism,  and 
such  as  we  verily  believe  no  minister  in  the  Dutch 
Church  ever  did  or  ever  will  subscribe,  had  on  a  pre- 
ceding Sabbath  been  publicly  read  from  the  pulpit,  and 
contrasted  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church.  All  the  circumstances  of  this  case  undeniably 
prove  that  the  impression  intended  to  be  made  upon  the 
people  by  that  publication  was,  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  Dutch  Church  were  either  infected  with  these 
errors,  or  at  least  entirely  disposed  to  countenance  and 
to  cherish  them. 

The  second  instance,  and  which  for  the  honor  of 
religion,  if  the  act  had  not  been  public,  and  the  present 
call  for  its  exposure  was  not  so  imperious,  might,  for 
us,  have  passed  into  everlasting  oblivion,  was  exempli- 
fied in  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Fraeligh  himself. 

After  having  been  officially  notified  that  a  large  and 
respectable  committee  had  been  deputed  by  Synod  to 
meet  the  Classis  of  Paramus  on  the  sixth  of  July,  in 
the  church  of  Hackensack,  for  the  purposes  of  friendly 
conference,  and  of  restoring  if  possible  peace  and  good 
order  to  the  churches  of  that  region,  Dr.  Fraeligh  and 
his  consistories  not  only  absented  themselves  from  said 
meeting,  but  that  gentleman  did,  as  we  are  credibly  in- 
formed, publicly  denounce  said  commission  from  the 
pulpits  of  the  churches  of  Hackensack  and  Schraalen- 
burgh,  stating,  in  substance,  that  they  were  approach- 
ing to  break  their  peace,  scatter,  and  destroy ;  intimat- 
ing his  desire  that  neither  man,  woman,  or  child  might, 
even  from  motives  of  curiosity,  attend  said  meeting; 
and,  to  crown  all,  did  also,  with  concurrence  of  his 
consistory,  set  apart  Monday,  the  fifth  of  July,  the  day 
immediately  preceding  that  of  the  meeting  of  the  com- 
mission, as  a  day  of  solemn  fasting  and  prayer,  re- 
questing the  people  to  convene  on  that  day  at  the  church 
of  Schraalenburgh,  to  offer  supplication  to  God  that  He 


226  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

might  defeat  the  designs  of,  and  prepare  them  to  meet, 
their  enemies. 

Enemies!  And  who  were  their  enemies?  Could 
the  commissioners  of  General  Synod,  sent  forth  as  min- 
isters of  reconciliation,  be  their  enemies?  And  would 
Dr.  Fraeligh  proclaim  a  fast  to  meet  these  enemies? 

How  did  that  gentleman  dare  to  appeal  to  Heaven 
in  such  a  case?  How  could  he  thus  awfully  trifle  with 
a  holy  ordinance  of  God?  The  facts  here  stated  con- 
stitute one  of  the  most  extraordinary  occurrences  we 
have  ever  witnessed,  and  we  want  words  to  express  our 
views  of  the  heinousness  of  the  whole  transaction. 

Can  acts  like  these  endure  trial  of  the  Word  of  God ; 
or  can  they  possibly  be  perpetrated  without  guilt? 

If  representations  like  these  are  made  in  our 
churches  with  effect,  by  what  strong  delusion  must  the 
people  be  misled,  and  what  awful  passions  must  be  en- 
gendered? How  will  parents  be  excited  against  their 
children,  and  children  against  their  parents,  husbands 
against  their  wives,  and  wives  against  their  husbands, 
and  how  will  the  most  effectionate  friends  and  neigh- 
bors be  drawn  out  against  each  other,  in  ever  widening 
difference  ?  Yes,  in  this  case,  we  must  see  ties  broken, 
which  have  hitherto  bound  in  holy  friendship  disciples 
of  the  same  Lord,  and  expectants  of  the  same  glory. 
We  must  see  congregations  broken  to  pieces,  and  the 
regular  administration  of  the  word  and  ordinances 
prevented  by  the  feebleness  of  conflicting  factions.  We 
must  see  altar  set  against  altar,  the  peace  of  neighbor- 
hoods disturbed,  the  ordinary  civilities  of  life  refused, 
domestic  harmony  interrupted,  and  members  of  the 
same  spiritual  household,  not  only  indulging  in  fearful 
denunciations,  but  in  all  the  perpetuated  bitterness  of 
strife.  "Thus  biting  and  devouring  one  another,"  must 
"they  not  be  consumed  one  of  another?"  This  picture, 
we  believe,  is  not  overcharged ;  in  its  incipient  outlines 
it  is  already  visible.  Nor  can  the  leaders  of  the  seces- 
sion, after  having  scattered  their  firebrands,  tell  where 
these  will  lodge,  or  what  evils  they  will  produce;  nor 
can  they  themselves  arrest  the  fire  when  it  burns,  or 


REPORT    ON     THE    SECESSION     OF    1822  227 

mark  out  the  limits,  either  in  time  or  extent,  beyond 
which  it  shall  cease  to  rage. 

Under  these  circumstances  is  it  not  their  duty  to 
pause?  If  they  have  erred, — and  erred  they  certainly 
have,  and  that  most  grievously, — ought  they  not  to  re- 
pent? To  err  is  human;  to  acknowledge  error  when 
committed,  noble;  to  forsake  it,  sacred,  imperious, 
bounden.  Christian  duty. 

We  would  earnestly  call  the  attention  of  these 
brethren,  and  of  all  the  churches  of  that  region,  to  a 
serious  perusal  of  the  discourse  preceding  this  address ; 
and  especially  to  those  parts  of  it  in  which  Christ,  and 
His  Apostles,  and  the  Synod  speak.  We  entreat  them 
also  to  remember,  that,  although  we  have  reproved 
them,  we  have  not  therefore  become  their  enemies. 
Our  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  that  branch 
of  our  Israel,  is,  that  it  may  still  be  saved. 

Brethren,  remember,  that  as  you  cannot  be  borne 
out  in  this  act  by  the  judgment  of  God,  so  you  are  not 
likely  to  be  borne  out  in  it,  even  in  the  judgment  of 
wise  and  good  men.  The  public  Christian  sentiment 
will  be  against  you,  and  that  sentiment  ought  never  to 
be  despised.  By  adhering  to  your  present  course,  you 
will  open  a  wide  door  for  the  birth  and  play  of  the  most 
malevolent  passions  of  the  human  heart;  open  the 
mouth  of  enemies  to  blaspheme ;  offend  God ;  grieve  the 
godly;  gratify  the  spirit  of  discord;  and  procure  for 
yourselves  grief  and  dishonor,  deep,  lasting,  and,  per- 
haps, eternal. 

That  Synod  and  Commission  whom  you  have 
deemed  your  enemies,  have  been  so  far  from  manifest- 
ing a  hostile  disposition  towards  you,  that  they  have 
done  everything  that  men  could  do,  without  weakness 
or  dishonor,  to  attract  your  confidence ;  they  have  still 
left  open  an  honorable  door  of  reconciliation,  and  still 
hope  it  may  not  have  been  done  in  vain. 

To  the  members  and  other  worshippers  in  our 
churches  of  that  region,  we  would  say,  get  light  before 
you  act  in  this  secession;  and  if  criminations  are  ut- 


228  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

tered  against  our  church,  ask,  for  it  is  your  right,  for 
good  substantial  proof  of  their  truth. 

It  is  easy  to  rail,  and  to  find  fault,  but  we  trust  you 
have  learned  of  Christ.  Remember,  that  for  all  your 
acts  in  this  case,  you  are  responsible  to  Heaven,  and 
must  one  day,  with  ourselves,  render  in  your  account. 

Remember,  also,  "That  though  we  have  the  gift  of 
prophecy,  and  understand  all  mysteries,  and  all  knowl- 
edge; and  though  we  have  all  faith,  so  that  we  could 
remove  mountains ;  and  though  we  bestow  all  our  goods 
to  feed  the  poor,  and  even  give  our  bodies  to  be  burned 
and  have  not  charity,  it  profiteth  nothing,"  I  Cor.  XIII. 
"Let  all  bitterness,  therefore,  and  wrath,  and  anger, 
and  clamor,  and  evil  speaking,  be  put  away  from  you, 
with  all  malice,  and  be  ye  kind  one  to  another,  tender 
hearted,  forgiving  one  another,  even  as  [we  hope  that] 
God,  for  Christ's  sake,  hath  forgiven  you,"  Eph.  IV, 
31. 

To  the  ministers,  officers,  and  members  of  our 
churches  generally,  we  would  say,  let  us  endeavor  to 
draw  good  out  of  this  evil.  Let  us  institute  a  rigid 
inquiry  into  our  own  state,  as  well  as  into  that  of  our 
respective  churches.  Let  us  guard  the  truth,  guard 
the  rising  generation,  and  guard  our  discipline;  and 
where  we  have  done  wrong,  let  us  hasten  in  the  fear 
and  in  the  strength  of  God,  to  correct  it. 

Let  us  offer,  especially,  our  fervent  prayer  to  the 
Almighty  God,  that  he  may  be  propitious  to  our 
churches ;  that  He  may  pour  out  His  Holy  Spirit,  bind 
in  stronger  love  our  ministers  and  people,  keep  them 
from  dissensions,  turn  the  hearts  of  our  offending 
brethren,  and  glorify  himself  exceedingly,  not  only  by 
filling  all  Heaven,  but  the  whole  earth,  also,  with  His 
glory. 

Published  by  order  of  the  Commission. 

PHILIP  MILLEDOLER, 
JOHN  KNOX, 
ABM.  VAN  NEST, 

Sub  Committee. 


REV.  PHIUP  MILLEDOLER,  D.  D. 


230         LANDMARKS   .  OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XV.    GENERAL  SYNOD  HOLDING 
THE  BALANCE-ROD 


IN  ADDITION  to  the  acts  of  the  General  Synod  rela- 
tive to  the  Antinomian  controversy  between  Ten 
Eyck  and  others,  and  the  other  acts  of  the  Synod 
before  quoted,  on  questions  of  doctrine,  the  following 
are  deemed  important: 

October,  1820,  the  Synod  took  the  following  action : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  stand- 
ards of  this  Church,  teach  us,  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  died  as  an  atoning  sacrifice,  only  for  those  whom 
the  Father  has  given  Him;  for  whom,  in  the  divine 
love  and  wisdom.  He  became  the  substituted  victim. 

"Resolved,  That  Conrad  Ten  Eyck's  former  opin- 
ions on  the  subject  of  the  atonement,  as  contained  in 
his  printed  defense,  meet  our  decided  disapprobation. 

"Whereas,  it  has  been  repeatedly  alleged,  on  the 
floor  of  this  Synod,  that  some  of  its  members  have  de- 
nied the  infinite  value  and  sufficiency  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  whole  world;  and 
whereas,  the  expression  of  the  sense  of  Synod  on  this 
subject,  at  this  time,  is  deemed  important;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  house,  that 
the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  and  satisfac- 
tion, is  of  infinite  worth  and  value,  abundantly  suf- 
ficient to  expiate  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;  but,  that 
this  infinite  value,  and  dignity  of  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  solely  derived  from  the  considerations  men- 
tioned in  the  fourth  article,  under  the  second  head  of 
doctrine,  in  the  Canons,  and  from  none  other." 

Article  four,  second  head,  Canons  of  Dort,  reads: 

"This  death  derives  its  infinite  value  and  dignity 


GENERAL     SYNOD     HOLDS     THE     BALANCE-ROD  231 

from  these  considerations:  because  the  person  who 
submitted  to  it  was  not  only  really  man,  and  perfectly 
holy,  but  also  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  of  the 
same  eternal  and  infinite  essence  with  the  Father  and 
Holy  Spirit,  which  qualifications  were  necessary  to  con- 
stitute him  a  Savior  for  us;  and  because  it  was  at- 
tended with  a  sense  of  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  to 
us  for  sin." 

June,  1824,  relative  to  the  flood  of  rationalistic 
literature  in  the  Eastern  States,  for  which  the  Seceders 
of  1822  seem  to  have  held  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
responsible,  the  Synod  said: 

"Whereas,  certain  publications  have  issued  from 
the  press,  and  have  been  circulated  in  many  parts  of 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  denying  the  doctrines  of 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  of  God,  of  the  total 
inability  and  depravity  of  man,  of  the  definite  nature 
of  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  a  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  His  people,  and  the  usefulness  and  bind- 
ing obligations  of  creeds  and  confessions  of  faith,  and 

"Whereas,  it  has  been  frequently  averred  (especi- 
ally by  members  of  the  late  secession),  that  such  erro- 
neous doctrines  are  now  tolerated  in  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  and 

"Whereas,  such  publications  are  calculated  to  fo- 
ment the  unhappy  spirit  now  existing  in  many  parts 
of  the  church,  to  increase  the  dissensions  of  its  mem- 
bers, and  alienate  still  further  the  minds  of  the  adher- 
ents of  the  secession,  and 

"Whereas,  it  is  deemed  important  that  the  General 
Synod  at  its  present  session  should  express  a  definite 
opinion  on  these  subjects;  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  while  this  Synod  totally  disap- 
proves of  the  late  secesssion,  and  of  all  the  means  that 
have  been  employed  to  promote  it,  it  does  decidedly  dis- 
own and  condemn  any  such  doctrines  (before  recited) 
set  forth  in  such  publications,  and  the  doctrines  com- 
monly called  Hopkinsian,  as  being  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  decidedly  con- 
demns the  course  pursued  by  ministers  and  members 


232         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

of  the  late  secession,  who,  by  their  publications  and 
conversation,  and  other  measures,  have  endeavored  to 
establish  the  belief  that  such  are  the  views  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church,  which  views  [imputations]  this 
Synod  unequivocally  pronounces  altogether  calumni- 
ous." 

In  a  Pastoral  Letter  of  June,  1824,  the  following  is 
found : 

"Beloved  brethren,  are  there  some,  who  bear  the 
name  of  Christ,  who  are  sons  of  strife, — fomenters  of 
discord  and  schism, — come  ye  out  from  among  them, 
be  ye  of  one  heart  and  one  mind, — in  unity  of  affection 
and  effort  is  strength  and  success.  Are  any  carried 
away  with  every  wind  of  doctrine?  Be  ye  strong  and 
immovable  in  the  truth.  In  this  day  of  party  feeling, 
we  consider  it  our  duty  to  exhort  you  to  cherish  and 
maintain  the  doctrines  of  our  publicly  adopted  stan- 
dards, in  subordination  to  the  Word  of  God.  We  as- 
sure you  that  these  are  now  as  they  have  ever  been, 
the  true  expression  of  the  faith  of  the  Dutch  Church. 
And  though  some  of  this  day,  to  answer  sinister  pur- 
poses, may  represent  a  conscientious  attachment  to 
and  defense  of  the  truth  as  bigotry,  know  this,  that  the 
abiding  peace  of  a  well  settled  conscience,  and  a  sound 
and  intelligent  faith,  is  of  infinitely  more  worth  to  you, 
than  either  the  smiles  of  any  man,  or  any  set  of  men. 

"Are  any  boasting  the  correctness  and  orthodoxy 
of  their  faith,  while  great  want  of  the  practical  de- 
tails of  Christian  duty,  and  a  departure  from  moral 
principle,  show  the  heresy  of  their  hearts  ?  Be  ye  care- 
ful and  anxious,  that  the  orthodoxy  of  your  faith  be 
seen  in  the  holiness  of  your  lives." 

There  was  at  this  time  a  terrible  war  on  in  the 
Eastern  States  between  orthodoxy  and  rationalism, 
and  it  was  a  task  to  prevent  orthodox  people  from 
veering  into  the  opposite  extreme  of  Antinomianism. 
This  latter  tendency  had  made  Dr.  Fraeligh's 
churches  by  1826-28  probably  the  corruptest  in  the 
land,  for  they  tried  to  show  the  orthodoxy  of  their 


GENERAL     SYNOD      HOLDS     THE     BALANCE-ROD  233 

faith  in  pure  doctrine,  no  matter  how  leprous  the  life. 
It  is  very  evident  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Synod  had 
had  a  hard  task  to  maintain  a  correct  balance  between 
the  discordant  extremes  in  her  midst;  and  that  she 
partially  failed  is  evident  from  Fraeligh's  secession  in 
1822.  The  Synod,  however,  re-declared  correct  Re- 
formed doctrine,  almost  in  the  exact  words  of  the 
Standards;  but  she  also  re-declared  correct  Reformed 
practice,  and  she  insisted  on  showing  the  orthodoxy  of 
faith,  not  in  pure  doctrine  and  a  corrupt  life,  but  in 
correct  doctrine  manifested  also  in  the  holiness  of  life. 

The  State  Church  of  Holland  deposed  Rev.  De  Cock 
in  1834-5  for  defending  Reformed  truth  against  two 
rationalists,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  Dutch  Seces- 
sion were  deposed  for  violating  the  government-made 
Church  Rules  of  1816;  while,  in  1822,  Solomon  Frae- 
ligh  and  his  adherents  forced  themselves  to  secede  be- 
cause they  failed  to  force  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
to  remove  the  old  landmarks  of  faith  of  the  Fathers. 
And  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  finally  deposed  the 
leaders  of  that  secession,  not  for  preaching  Reformed 
doctrine,  but  for  preaching  and  practicing  heterodoxy. 
"Show  the  orthodoxy  of  your  faith,"  the  Reformed 
Synod  said,  "in  the  holiness  of  your  lives,  and  not  in 
the  holiness  of  doctrine  alone." 

If  the  Synod  of  The  Hague  in  the  State  Church  had 
re-declared  Reformed  doctrine  in  1835,  as  the  Re- 
formed Church  in  America  did  in  1817-24,  and  had  re- 
pealed the  Rules  of  1816,  and  gone  back  to  the  Rules  of 
1568-1619, — the  position  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
America  never  deserted, — would  not  Brummelkamp, 
Van  Velzen,  Van  Raalte,  Scholte  and  Gezelle  Meerburg 
have  made  the  Holland  of  1835  ring  with  joy?  And 
would  they  not  then  have  served  even  in  the  State 
Church,  with  gladness  all  their  lives,  as  they  could  cer- 
tainly have  done  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
America  without  let  or  hindrance,  all  the  time  from 
1620  till  the  present  time? 

In  the  State  Church  in  Holland,  since  1800,  some 


234  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

real  religious  tragedies  were  enacted.  Poets  like  De 
Genestet  sang  religious  Holland  to  sleep,  and  ration- 
alists like  Rev.  Zaalberg,  Prof.  Hofstede  de  Groot,  and 
the  Groninger  School,  claimed,  in  dead  earnest,  that 
they  were  delivering  Holland  from  the  shackles  of  sup- 
erstition, and  were  merely  doing  the  work  of  Luther 
and  Calvin  on  a  higher  plane.  They  claimed  the  right 
to  teach  and  preach  rationalistic  doctrine  in  the  Neth- 
erlands Reformed  Church,  as  if  that  were  the  real  nine- 
teenth century  gospel  of  Christ.  The  orthodox  people 
in  that  Church  were  forced  to  bear  all  this,  or  to  secede. 
The  fight  was  determined  and  terrible  on  both  sides. 
In  Amsterdam,  where  the  rationalists  had  been  in  con- 
trol for  years,  the  devoted  believers  in  the  old  doc- 
trines, with  their  harps  on  the  willows,  complaining 
"they  have  taken  away  the  Lord,  and  we  do  not  know 
where  they  have  laid  Him."  were,  in  1851,  startled  by 
the  call  of  Rev.  Hasebroek  of  Rotterdam  to  Amster- 
dam. The  report  spread  like  wild  fire,  and  the  faith- 
ful shook  hands  and  shed  tears  of  joy.  The  call  was 
accepted,  and  whenever  Hasebroek  was  announced  to 
preach,  people  in  Amsterdam  crowded  around  the 
church  two  hours  before  the  doors  were  opened,  and 
filled  the  building  to  overflowing,  to  hear  the  doctrine 
of  free  grace  once  more.  And  again,  in  1870,  when 
Dr.  Kuyper  of  Utrecht  accepted  the  call  to  Amsterdam, 
whenever  Kuyper  officiated,  the  scenes  of  1851  repeat- 
ed and  surpassed  themselves.  The  whole  trouble  in 
Holland  was  that,  since  1816,  the  Reformed  Churches 
were  not  any  longer  autonomous,  and  they  were  not 
allowed  to  legislate  for  themselves  any  more.  They 
had  become  a  part  of  a  State  machine,  supported  by 
taxation,  and  dependent  upon  the  State  in  every  way. 
Rationalists  claimed,  and  obtained,  protection  because 
the  Church  was  the  Volks  Kerk,  the  national  Church. 
If  there  had  been  no  State  control  to  complicate  the 
situation,  the  problem  would  have  been  simplified,  and 
probably  solved  by  this  time. 

In  America,  however,  the  Reformed  Churches  were 
and  are  autonomous  and  free  to  legislate  for  them- 


GENERAL     SYNOD     HOLDS     THE     BALANCE-ROD  235 

selves.  No  government  protects  rationalists  in  the 
church  here.  No  instances,  like  those  at  Amsterdam 
in  1851  and  1870,  were  necessary  here,  for  the  local 
churches  were  free  to  be  as  orthodox  as  the  Scriptures 
required,  without  lordship  of  any  kind.  Every  com- 
parison made  by  the  Western  Seceders  between  the 
State  Church  in  Holland  and  the  American  Reformed 
Church  was,  therefore,  vicious,  and  based  on  an  erro- 
neous conception  of  facts.  If  any  comparison  is  per- 
mitted at  all  in  this  matter,  it  is  that  the  differences 
among  the  Hollanders  in  the  West,  including  those 
about  the  Eastern  Church,  are  comparable  to  the  dif- 
ferences which  existed  among  the  Seceders  in  Holland, 
and  which  had  been  imported  from  the  old  country.  It 
is  sheer  ignorance  to  liken  the  Reformed  Church  in 
America  to  the  State  Church  of  Holland;  and  the  idea 
that  Meerburg,  Brummelkamp,  Van  Raalte,  and  even 
Van  Velzen,  would  have  seceded  from  the  Reformed 
Church  in  1857,  on  the  points  raised  by  the  Seceders  in 
1857,  cannot  be  maintained,  for  these  clergymen  knew 
Reformed  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  past  300  years 
too  well.  Remonstrants  and  rationalists  were  in  con- 
trol in  Holland  in  1835,  and,  what  is  worse,  threw  these 
orthodox  leaders  out  of  the  church.  In  the  American 
Church,  rationalists  were  never  in  control,  and  did  not 
exist  in  that  Church,  and  no  orthodox  clergymen  or 
members  were  ever  cast  out  of  that  Church  on  account 
of  their  orthodoxy. 

The  secession  in  the  West  in  1857  was  a  brand-new 
invention  of  some  of  the  Seceders  in  Holland  after 
1835,  imported  into  Michigan,  and  having  as  its  basis 
a  false  foundation,  consisting  of  the  idea  that  differ- 
ences about  emphasizing  certain  doctrines,  and  differ- 
ences in  viewing  Church  Rules,  constituted  the  line  be- 
tween the  true  and  the  false  church — a  notion  unscrip- 
tural,  and  heterodox  in  the  extreme. 

The  right  to  leave  a  church,  and  even  to  start  an- 
other denomination  under  certain  circumstances,  may 
be  conceded;  but  the  right  to  declare  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  in  1857  a  corrupt  and  false  church,  and 


236  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

to  secede  from  her  on  the  points  alleged  by  the  Seced- 
ers  of  1857,  with  the  claim  that  the  Seceders  thereby- 
remained  true  Reformed  Church,  was,  under  recog- 
nized Reformed  doctrine  and  practice,  but  little  short 
of  an  ecclesiastical  crime. 

In  the  State  Church  of  Holland  a  State-made  synod 
wielded  a  sceptre  of  oppression.  In  the  American  Re- 
formed Church,  a  general  synod,  composed  of  autono- 
mous local  churches,  held  the  balance-rod,  and  thus  en- 
deavored to  avoid  the  dangerous  extremes  which  have 
from  time  to  time  disgraced  ecclesiastical  history,  and 
to  maintain  the  golden  mean  in  doctrine  and  practice. 
The  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  insisted 
that  the  clergymen  should  rightly  divide  the  word  of 
truth.  The  General  Synod  labored  hard  to  prevent 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  of  Reformed  Churches 
from  becoming  what  the  Seceders  had  made  of  it — an 
opiate  administered  by  the  flesh  and  the  devil,  draw- 
minds  away  from  all  piety  and  religion,  making  God 
the  author  of  sin,  and  people  carnally  secure,  since 
nothing  can  hinder  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  and  the 
works  of  saints  cannot  aid  the  reprobate,  and  many 
other  things  of  the  same  kind,  which  Reformed 
Churches  not  only  do  not  acknowledge,  but  even  detest 
with  their  whole  soul. 


FAR      HENCE      UNTO      THE      GENTILES  237 


XVI.   FAR  HENCE  UNTO  THE  GENTILES 


AS  WAS  to  be  expected,  humanly  speaking,  there 
were  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  some  who 
entertained  rather  Antinomian  ideas,  and  had  a 
decided  slant  against  foreign  missions.  These  people 
overstated  the  doctrine  of  election  and  irresistible 
grace  so  far  as  to  lose  sight  of  other  important  truths 
in  the  Bible.  And  this,  together  with  the  tendency  to 
independentism,  fostered  during  the  Revolution, 
caused  some  wrangling  in  the  assemblies  of  the  Church. 
The  spirit  of  lawlessness  was  strong.  While  there  was 
no  trouble  about  Arminianism  until  about  1820,  yet 
the  contentions  of  the  Coetus-Conferentie  were  not 
completely  silenced.  For  years  after  the  union  in  1771, 
several  churches  in  the  Hudson  valley  had  refused  to 
join,  and  when  they  did  join,  the  spirit  of  independence 
was  in  the  air.  Elders,  and  sometimes  clergymen, 
would  become  a  law  unto  themselves  and  leave  the 
classis  or  synods  without  permission.  Often,  too,  when 
a  matter  had  been  voted  on,  the  discussion  still  pro- 
ceeded, sometimes  without  due  order  or  decency.  In 
1790  the  question  of  absenting  members  was  consid- 
ered by  the  General  Synod ;  in  1800,  the  rights  of  pro- 
testing members  were  recognized,  but  "such  members 
must  not  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction,  as  there  is 
also  a  law  of  self-preservation" ;  in  1813  something  is 
said  about  intemperate,  personal,  unwarranted  asper- 
sions, etc.,  against  the  dignity  of  the  supreme  tribunal 
of  the  Church,  and  insubordination  was  condemned; 
and  in  1814,  it  was  again  the  rights  of  protesting  mem- 
bers. The  matter  finally  came  to  a  crisis,  when  Revs. 
Jones  and  Amerman  attacked  the  Standards  of  Dort 


238  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

in  classes  and  synods,  and  in  print,  for  which  they  were 
disciplined;  and  in  1822,  they  broke  away  with  Dr. 
Fraeligh  and  a  few  others,  in  open  independency. 
Gradually  better  order  prevailed;  but  in  1833,  the 
Church,  in  revising  the  Constitution,  included  a  pro- 
vision against  protests  in  its  meetings  when  a  ques- 
tion had  been  voted  on.  This  rule,  designed  to  pre- 
vent disorder  in  the  assemblies,  had  a  salutary  effect. 
It  left  the  way  of  appeal,  in  an  orderly  manner,  as 
wide  open  as  ever.  This  good  law  might  have  been 
worded  differently,  for,  years  afterward,  among  the 
Hollanders  in  Michigan,  the  Seceders  used  this  rule 
against  protest  in  meetings  as  a  denial  of  both  protect 
in  meeting  after  a  matter  had  been  disposed  of,  and 
of  protest  by  way  of  appeal.  However,  the  rule,  leav- 
ing the  right  of  appeal  intact,  silenced  those  who  turned 
the  meetings  of  the  church  into  debating  societies,  and 
it  cut  off  harangues  and  recriminations  from  the  coun- 
cils of  the  church,  without  interfering  with  the  regular 
right  of  appeal.  The  growing  influence  of  Rutgers  and 
Union  Colleges,  and  of  the  Seminary  at  New  Bruns- 
wick, as  well  as  the  elimination  of  the  extreme  inde- 
pendents in  the  Secession  of  1822,  made  the  Reformed 
Church,  in  the  early  thirties,  one  of  the  best  ordered 
churches  in  the  land,  as  the  Princeton  professors  ad- 
mitted. It  is  certain  that  the  elimination  of  the  adher- 
ents of  Dr.  Fraeligh  in  1822,  diminished  the  influence 
of  the  passive  Antinomian  element  in  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  so  perceptibly  that  it  was  of  material 
assistance  in  paving  the  way  for  a  more  active  par- 
ticipation in  the  work  of  evangelizing  heathen  lands. 
It  made  straight  the  way  for  the  victory  for  Foreign 
Missions  achieved  in  the  General  Synod  in  1830. 

The  progress  of  the  work  for  Foreign  Missions  in 
the  Eastern  States  had  been  retarded  by  the  indiffer- 
ence and  worldliness  engendered  by  the  War  for  Inde- 
pendence, as  the  records  of  that  time  plainly  reveal, 
and  there  are  in  the  records  of  the  Reformed  Church 
many  references  that  very  well  show  this  state  of  re- 
ligion in  the  Eastern  part  of  the  country.    In  1792,  a 


FAR      KENCE      UNTO      THE      GENTILES  239 

day  of  prayer  and  fasting  was  appointed,  on  account  of 
the  "prostrate  state  of  the  Church  of  God,  and  the 
dearth  and  deadness  of  Jehovah's  people."  In  1820,  a 
committee,  Dr.  Milledoler  chairman,  reported  "many 
in  our  churches  are  yet  unconverted,  under  the  curse 
of  God,  and  exposed  to  eternal  wrath,"  There  are  sev- 
eral similar  expressions  that  bear  the  cast  of  a  sterner 
time  than  the  present,  and  while  the  Synod  talks  of 
walking  about  Zion,  and  telling  her  towers,  there  are, 
sometimes,  also  many  glances  within  the  walls  of  Zion. 
All  the  way  from  1792,  there  are  the  minor  tones  of 
sadness  over  failures  and  mistakes.  The  reports  on 
the  state  of  the  Church  are  often  a  good  antidote 
against  boasting;  but  through  them  runs  the  blend  of 
an  irresistible  missionary  fervor.  The  absence,  indeed, 
of  criticism  and  complaint  would  have  been  a  certain 
sign  of  decay,  and  it  is  unfortunately  true  that  all  that 
were  of  Israel  were  not  Israel,  even  in  the  Reformed 
Church.  He  who  is  without  sin  must  throw  the  first 
stones. 

In  spite  of  the  languishing  state  of  religion  in  the 
Atlantic  States  for  years  after  the  Revolutionary  War, 
however,  the  Reformed  Church  had  already  started 
some  twenty  mission  churches  in  Canada  and  Ken- 
tucky; but  it  was  not  until  1830,  that  decisive  steps 
toward  foreign  missions  were  taken.  In  1823,  a  re- 
quest came  from  the  "Salts  of  St.  Mary"  for  a  mission- 
ary, a  call  which,  no  doubt,  resulted  in  the  response  of 
one  of  the  New  Brunswick  graduates.  Rev.  Wm.  M. 
Ferry,  to  go  to  Mackinac  Island.  (This  Rev.  Ferry 
later  settled  at  Grand  Haven,  Michigan,  and  became 
the  friend  of  Dr.  Van  Raalte  in  1847.)  In  1824, 
African  colonization  was  discussed.  A  few  years 
later,  a  committee  was  ordered  sent  to  old  Holland,  to 
solicit  funds  for  the  college  and  seminary,  and  to  ac- 
quire information  as  to  church  affairs,  etc.,  in  the 
Old  Country.  But  in  1835,  conditions  had  improved 
so  much,  "That  our  Reformed  Dutch  Zion  is  eminently 
qualified  by  intelligence,  piety  and  wealth,  to  send  mis- 
sionaries to  the  foreign  fields,"  and  the  Synod  asks, 


240  LANDMARKS       OF      THE       REFORMED       FATHERS 

"Shall  Rev.  Abeel  return  weeping  and  broken-hearted 
to  the  dying  millions  of  the  east?"  Rev.  Abeel  had  al- 
ready visited  China  (1829),  Java  (1830),  Siam  (1831) 
and  had  returned  in  1834  from  a  visit  to  Holland, 
after  arranging  for  mis?^.ions  in  Java  and  Borneo.  He 
preached  before  the  General  Synod  the  annual  mis- 
sion sermon  on  Isaiah  54:2,  "Spare  not,  lengthen  thy 
cords,  strengthen  thy  stakes,"  and  had  visited  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Churches  in  the  interest  of  missions. 
In  1838  he  was  in  China;  in  1841-2  in  Borneo,  and  in 
Amoy  in  1842-5,  whence  he  returned  broken  in  health. 
Rev.  David  Abeel  was  the  globe-trotter  for  the  Ameri- 
can Mission  Board,  and  he,  with  Noel,  started  in  Lon- 
don in  1835  the  Society  for  Female  Education  in  the 
Orient.  He  was  the  best  known  foreign  missionary  of 
his  day.  His  journals  and  works  were  known  all  over 
American  and  Europe,  and  he  reflected  great  credit  on 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  The  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  published  his  "Residence  in  China  and  Neigh- 
boring Countries,"  in  1836,  and  Rev.  Williamson's 
Memoirs  of  Abeel  in  1848.  Rev.  Abeel  and  his  works 
were  well  known  by  the  reading  public  in  the  Nether- 
lands. 

John  Scudder  labored  in  India  and  Ceylon  since 
1819,  and  Daniel  Lindley  in  South  Africa.  When 
Scudder  laid  down  his  life  in  South  Africa,  while  on 
the  way  to  India  in  1855,  he  said,  "My  last  request  to 
the  Dutch  Church  is  that  they  may  live  and  labor  and 
pray  for  the  salvation  of  a  lost  world,  and  that  they 
may  bring  up  their  children  for  this  great  object." 

The  following  extract  from  Rev.  Dwight's  report  on 
Missions  in  1835  shows  the  nature,  extent,  and  zeal 
of  the  Missionary  spirit  of  this  Calvinistic  Reformed 
Church  in  those  days :-  "Shall  we  be  satisfied  with  rear- 
ing temples  and  awakening  songs  of  praise  within 
the  narrow  limits  of  our  land,  and  refuse  to  make  Hin- 
dustan and  China  tributary  to  our  God?  It  is  a  mis- 
taken idea  that  sending  the  provisions  of  the  gospel 
abroad,  is  spreading  famine  within  our  own  doors. 
The  heart  that  is  open  to  the  wants  of  the  stranger  is 


FAR      HENCE      UNTO      THE      GENTILES  241 

usually  the  one  that  provides  most  liberally  for  its  own 
household.  Reason  assures  us  of  such  a  result,  and  we 
are  warranted  in  the  expectation  of  it  by  the  promise 
of  God,  *If  thou  draw  out  thy  soul  to  the  hungry,  and 
satisfy  the  afflicted  soul,  thou  shalt  be  like  a  watered 
garden,  and  like  a  spring  of  water  whose  waters  fail 
not,  and  they  that  shall  be  of  thee,  shall  build  the 
waste  places.  Thou  shalt  raise  up  the  foundations  of 
many  generations;  and  thou  shalt  be  called  the  re- 
pairer of  the  breach,  the  restorer  of  paths  to  dwell  in.* 
*  *  *  The  inhabitants  of  the  heathen  world  are 
climbing  the  highest  hills  to  catch  the  first  tints  that 
brighten  the  distant  mountains,  those  suffering  mor- 
tals are  on  their  watch  towers,  looking  with  eager  eyes 
for  the  dawning  of  that  day  which  is  to  scatter  the 
darkness  of  that  moral  night  which  has  so  long  en- 
shrouded them.  Watchman,  what  of  the  night?  Say 
ye  to  them  the  morning  cometh,  and  go  scatter  the 
light  of  heavenly  truth  among  them. 

Shall  we  whose  souls  are  lighted 
With  wisdom  from  on  high — 

Shall  we  to  men  benighted. 
The  lamp  of  life  deny?'" 

A  year  later,  1836,  Rev.  Button's  eloquent  report 
reflects  the  high  missionary  spirit  in  the  churches,  and 
refers  to  sending  out  "the  advance  guard  of  the  Dutch 
Church  to  the  dark  shores  of  heathenism."  And  what 
a  guard  it  was !  A  few  months  before  Dr.  Van  Raalte 
and  his  little  band  were  welcomed,  in  1846,  at  New 
York  and  Albany,  Rev.  Wyckoff  had  preached  the  fune- 
ral sermon  over  the  remains  of  Rev.  Abeel,  who,  on 
Sept.  5,  1846,  had  fallen  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of  mis- 
sions ;  and  a  month  before  Rev.  Scholte  sailed  into  Bos- 
ton harbor  in  May,  1847,  Rev.  J.  V.  N.  Talmage  and 
his  party  had  sailed  out,  Amoy-bound.  But  ten  years 
earlier,  in  1836,  David  Abeel's  advance  guard,  Ennis, 
Doty,  Nevius,  Youngblood  and  Miss  Condit  left  for 
Borneo;  in  1838  Pohlman  and  Thomson  followed,  and 
in  1841,  Isaac  Stryker.    The  reports,  letters,  and  jour- 


242  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

nals  of  those  heralds  of  the  cross  in  "the  islands  of  the 
sea,"  and  the  stories  of  their  hardships  and  sacrifies, 
still  further  fired  the  heart  of  the  Church  with  mis- 
sionary zeal.  Stryker,  on  his  way  from  Java  to  Bor- 
neo, died  at  Singapore,  and  lies  buried  there,  "in  a 
pleasant  morning-side  cemetery  with  his  feet  to  the 
foe."  Mrs.  Thomson  died  at  Batavia,  and  the  second 
wife  of  Thomson,  with  three  children,  lies  at  Pontianak, 
in  Borneo,  while  he,  after  great  labors  in  translating 
into  Dyak  the  gospels  and  hymns,  worn  out  in  body, 
but  with  heart  and  soul  in  Borneo,  died  at  Berne, 
Switzerland.  Youngblood  returned  in  1849,  broken 
down.  With  funds  on  hand,  but  no  reinforcements 
arriving,  so  hard  was  the  field  that  the  mission  was 
closed,  after  a  touching  farewell  to  his  schools  and  his 
beloved  Dyak  field.  Pohlman  and  Doty  went  from 
Borneo  to  Amoy  in  1844;  Mrs.  Doty  and  the  second 
Mrs.  Doty  died  in  the  foreign  field,  while  Pohlman  was 
drowned  on  the  way  from  Hongkong  to  Amoy.  And 
so  goes  the  story  of  these  trail-blazers  of  Missions. 
There  is  no  more  eloquent  evidence  of  the  Christian 
activities  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  those  days, 
than  that  furnished  by  her  mission  enterprises.  The 
little  mission  cemetery  on  Kolongzu,  near  Amoy,  tells 
the  story  of  her  missionary  families  who  laid  down 
their  lives  for  others. 

This  advance-guard  was  followed  by  others  to  China, 
India,  Japan  and  Arabia,  and  the  end  is  not  yet.  Whole 
brigades  of  Scudders,  Talmages,  Chamberlains,  Zwem- 
ers,  and  Pieters,  went  to  the  foreign  fields  from  those 
Reformed  Churches.  True  enough,  these  undertak- 
ings presented  strange  and  difficult  problems,  sorrows 
and  disappointments;  but,  when  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  began  to  labor  "on  the  dark  shores  of  heath- 
enism," she  "found  her  soul."  She  joined  Emanuel's 
army,  even  though  she  carried  in  that  army  only  a 
Benjamin's  banner.  It  was  her  faith  working  through 
love,  which  is  one  of  the  distinctive  features  of  the 
Calvinistic  or  Reformed  doctrine.  This  Church,  with 
the  floods  of  infidelity  and  liberalism  going  over  and 


FAR      HENCE      UNTO      THE      GENTILES  243 

around  her,  heard  the  call,  and  began  to  go  "far  hence 
unto  the  Gentiles."  But  the  more  she  emptied  herself 
for  others,  the  stronger  seemed  to  become  her  hold  at 
home ;  and  while  the  deluge  of  Unitarianism  was  threat- 
ening, and  myriads  of  foreigners  were  actually  be- 
leaguering them,  these  fortresses  of  Reformed  faith 
clung  to  their  Mohawk,  Hudson,  and  Raritan  holds, 
right  in  the  path  of  the  advancing  foes  not  only,  but 
they  even  carried  the  good  tidings  to  the  open  shores 
of  the  heathen  world  in  India,  China  and  Japan.  Con- 
sidering the  attacks  of  liberalism  of  all  kinds,  and 
especially  the  crowding  of  foreign  elements  among  her 
own  people,  it  is  marvelous  that  this  Church  was  not 
swept  away.  She  was,  in  truth,  a  miracle  of  God's 
grace,  and  as  to  the  church  at  Pergamum,  he  who  hath 
the  sharp  sword  with  two  edges,  could  say  to  her,  "I 
know  thy  works,  and  where  thou  dwellest,  even  where 
Satan's  seat  is;  and  thou  boldest  fast  my  name;  and 
hast  not  denied  my  faith  where  Satan  dwelleth."  In 
spite  of  obstacles  and  opposition,  this  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  was  "marching  as  to  war,  with  the  cross  of 
Jesus  going  on  before." 


244  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XVII.      BACKSIGHT  AND   FORESIGHT 


IT  IS  often  claimed  by  western  people  that  the  East- 
ern Church  was  not  well-informed,  had  little  con- 
ception of  true  Calvinism,  and  did  not  know  enough 
about  her  own  history.  That  claim  is  so  unjust,  so 
unfounded,  that  the  motive  back  of  such  claims  may  be 
justly  suspected.  This  church  was  until  1792  part  and 
parcel  of  the  Church  in  Holland,  and  had  all  the  re- 
ligious literature  of  the  Netherlands.  If  the  old  Church 
of  the  Fatherland  was  so  well-informed,  so  were  the 
leaders  and  the  clergymen  of  the  American  branch. 
Almost  without  exception  the  every  day  language  of 
the  Eastern  Reformed  people,  even  as  late  as  1850,  was 
the  Dutch  language,  and  all  the  leaders  understood 
that  language  when  Van  Raalte  and  the  Hollanders 
came  to  Michigan  and  Iowa  in  1846-7.  The  clergymen 
and  leaders,  almost  without  exception,  could  read,  and 
did  read  the  standard  theological  works  of  Holland  as 
late  as  1850.  When  the  English  language  became 
dominant,  even  the  best  Dutch  works  were  translated. 
In  1801,  Rev.  Basset  translated  Immen's  great  work 
on  Communion,  under  the  title  of  "Pious  Communi- 
cant" ;  in  1810,  Rev.  Van  Harlingen  translated  Van- 
der  Kemp's  Sermons  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism;  in 
1798,  appeared  the  English  translation  of  Witsius  on 
the  Covenants,  as  also  an  excellent  life  of  Witsius.  A 
little  later  the  works  of  the  elder  Turretin  were  also 
translated.  But,  when  the  clergymen  could  read  in 
three  or  four  languages,  the  translations  were  not  so 
necessary  except  for  those  not  so  learned.  Brakel's 
Reasonable  Religion,  Voetius,  Schortinghuis,  Bernard 
de  Moor,  Coccejus,  Maresius,  Burmanus,  Borstius,  a 
Marck,  Leydekker,  Trigland,  and  all  the  other  Dutch 


BACKSIGHT      AND      FORESIGHT  245 

standard  works  were  read  by  the  leaders  of  the  Church, 
as  is  fully  shown  by  the  copious  references  to  these 
classics  in  their  own  American  literature.  Even  Dr. 
J.  H.  Livingston  was  educated  at  Utrecht,  and  knew 
the  literature  and  theological  v/orks  of  the  Church  of 
Holland.  In  fact,  it  may  be  justly  claimed  that  the 
leaders  of  the  Eastern  Church  were  infinitely  better 
informed  as  to  the  characteristic  features  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  school,  than  were  the  Hollanders  who  came  to 
America  in  1847  and  later. 

In  1755,  Judge  Smith's  History  of  New  York  ap- 
peared, the  first  of  five  or  six  similar  histories  before 
1820,  in  all  of  which  the  history  of  the  Holland  settlers 
and  their  Reformed  churches  was  necessarily  con- 
spicuous. Later  on  the  Christian  Magazine  contained 
much  information  on  the  Dutch  Church  in  the  East, 
and,  in  fact,  a  series  of  articles  on  the  subject.  This 
was  the  age  of  pamphlets,  and  there  were  hundreds  of 
them  published  by  the  Reformed  clergymen  from  1750 
to  1850.  In  1826  the  Magazine  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  was  started,  and  in  that  periodical  appeared 
many  articles  on  the  history  of  the  Church.  Rev. 
Brownlee,  the  editor,  wrote  a  series  of  articles  on  the 
Dutch  Church  in  Holland  and  America.  In  1829,  Rev. 
Gunn  published  his  excellent  Life  of  Livingston,  a 
work  of  over  500  pages — almost  too  expensive  for  those 
days — bristling  with  facts  about  the  American  Dutch 
Church.  This  work  was  a  history  of  the  church,  and 
Gunn,  in  his  preface  refers  to  his  work  as  a  "Biogra- 
phy of  our  departed  Friend,  and  a  History  of  the 
Church."  Dr.  Van  Raalte  was  in  his  glee  when  he 
obtained  a  copy  of  Gunn's  Livingston  from  Dr.  De 
Witt  in  1846. 

In  1830,  The  Christian  Intelligencer  superseded  the 
Magazine  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  as  the  ve- 
hicle for  reaching  the  people.  This  periodical  was 
from  the  beginning  a  large  and  influential  sheet,  and 
was  powerful  even  in  New  York  City,  until  the  Ob- 
server, Christian  Union,  and  the  like,  became  serious 
competitors ;  the  Intelligencer  was  so  full  of  historical 


^^^^^. 


<=4^-3fc«-'     V    -■■•"^ 


>s-    X-X'SkJ.-^    --t,^^ 


REV.  THOMAS  DE  WITT.  D.D. 


BACKSIGHT      AND      FORESIGHT  247 

and  theological  matter  that  it  is  nearly  impossible  to 
do  more  than  just  mention  the  fact.  The  history  of 
almost  every  church  in  the  denomination  received  at- 
tention from  the  editors,  and  Holland  and  Scotland 
were  not  forgotten.  In  fact,  the  period  from  1800  to 
1850  was  prolific  in  matter  on  the  history  of  the  Church 
and  on  Reformed  doctrine,  and  it  is  doubtful  whether 
there  ever  was  a  period  in  the  church's  history  when 
her  leaders  were  so  well  informed  about  the  history 
and  the  doctrines  of  their  church. 

In  "Memorials  of  Dr.  De  Witt,  p.  13,  we  find  the 
statement  that  The  Christian  Intelligencer  was  pub- 
lished by  Charles  Van  Wyck,  and  that  a  committee  of 
Reformed  ministers  had  been  intrusted  with  super- 
vision over  the  ecclesiastical  or  religious  part  of  the 
same.  Dr.  De  Witt  was  chairman  of  this  committee, 
and  "he  made  it  his  business  for  twelve  years — 1831- 
48,  to  come  to  the  office,  to  read  the  exchanges,  and  to 
supervise  the  editorial  work."  This  Dr.  Thos.  De 
Witt  was  a  voluminous  writer  in  the  Intelligencer  on 
historical  subjects,  and  the  larger  history  of  New 
Netherlands  owes  much  to  him.  Bancroft,  it  must  be 
noted,  published  his  famous  chapter  on  New  Nether- 
lands in  1834,  and  gave  these  liberal  Dutchmen  of  long 
ago  their  just  dues.  In  1841,  the  Particular  Synod  of 
New  York  requested  De  Witt  to  write  the  history  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  and  the  ministers  of  the 
churches  were  requested  to  assist  in  procuring  docu- 
ments and  evidence  for  him.  De  Witt  was  also  in- 
structed to  translate  the  valuable  documents  obtained 
by  J.  Romeyn  Broadhead,  in  the  archives  of  the  Classis 
of  Amsterdam,  at  Synod's  expense, — that  Classis  hav- 
ing given  and  loaned  many  letters  and  documents  dat- 
ing from  1640  to  1775,  to  the  General  Synod ;  in  1843, 
De  Witt  was  instructed  to  write  the  history  of  the 
church  till  the  Union  of  1771 ;  evidence  was  gathered, 
though  some  had  been  lost  (as  is  the  case  in  the  Michi- 
gan churches  today) .  There  was  the  greatest  interest 
in  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Church  at  this  time, 
and  De  Witt  assisted  others  in  the  use  of  his  materials. 


248  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

and  in  1846,  one  of  his  friends,  O'Callaghan,  published 
his  History  of  New  Netherlands.  At  about  the  same 
time  Folsom's,  Broadhead's  and  Murphy's  works  ap- 
peared, besides  many  histories  of  local  churches.  Vol- 
umes of  the  correspondence  between  the  American 
Dutch  Church  and  the  Amsterdam  Classis  were  pub- 
lished. The  histories  of  some  of  the  American  Classes 
had  been  printed,  so  that  at  about  1850,  the  printed 
history  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  was  the  rich- 
est in  the  land.  Mention  must  be  made  here  of  De- 
marest's  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  1856, 
Corwin's  Manual  in  1858,  and  Gordon's  History  of  R. 
C.  A.  in  1869. 

In  the  Sage  Library  at  New  Brunswick,  in  the  Col- 
lege and  Seminary  libraries  at  Holland,  Michigan,  and 
in  many  local  libraries  in  Eastern  cities,  can  be  seen 
hundreds  of  volumes  from  the  libraries  of  the  pastors 
and  leaders  of  the  Church,  in  Latin,  Dutch,  and  Eng- 
lish, which  show  the  books  the  fathers  read  and 
studied.  Brakel,  Calvin,  Voetius,  and  all  the  rest  of 
the  old  Dutch  favorites  are  there;  Comrie,  Erskine, 
Newton,  Witsius,  Marck's  Medulla  are  well  represent- 
ed, and,  what  is  important,  the  life  of  the  Erskines  and 
the  history  of  the  Scotch  Secessions  seem  to  have  been 
the  favorites  among  the  New  York  and  New  Jersey 
Church  fathers.  It  is  also  evident  that  many  Dutch 
works  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  were  in  almost 
daily  use  by  the  ministers  of  the  Church  as  late  as 
1850.  The  tenacity  of  the  Dutch  language  was  mar- 
velous. We  read  of  De  Witt's  making  an  oration  in 
Dutch  at  the  laying  of  the  cornerstone  of  a  church  in 
Jersey  City  in  1841,  and  of  preaching  in  Dutch  in  a 
church  in  New  York  City  in  1844.  De  Witt  also 
preached  in  Dutch  in  Van  Raalte's  church  in  1859. 
Rev.  Wyckoff  also  preached  in  Dutch  often,  and  in  the 
Intelligencer  of  Jan.  29,  1857,  there  is  a  notice  in 
Dutch  of  a  religious  meeting  for  the  Hollanders  in 
New  York  City,  where  the  venerable  Rev.  Marselus 
was  to  preach  on  "God  Onze  Toevlucht"  (God  our 
Refuge) ,  in  the  Dutch  language.  In  fact  the  whole  Re- 


BACKSIGHT      AND      FORESIGHT  249 

formed  Dutch  Church  of  1850,  Scots  and  Huguenots 
included,  could  understand  Dutch  quite  well,  and  schol- 
ars like  Dr.  Chambers  and  Prof.  Demarest  read  Dutch 
easily.  Dr.  De  Witt  had  in  his  library  everything  pub- 
lished in  Holland  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  His  copies  of  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of 
The  Hague,  of  the  "Stemmen,"  of  Van  Prinsterer's 
pamphlets,  and  all  the  other  Dutch  publications  of  that 
time  are  in  Hope  College  Library.  Dr.  Brownlee,  in 
the  Magazine  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  in  1826, 
mentions  the  fact  that  the  clergymen  of  New  York  had 
an  association,  whose  object  was  to  procure  books  and 
information  on  religious  matters  in  Britain,  Holland, 
France  and  Switzerland. 

It  should  be  stated  that  in  the  Succinct  Tract,  writ- 
ten by  De  Witt  in  1848,  by  order  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  containing  a  short  history  of  that 
Church,  special  reference  is  made  to  the  standard 
works,  besides  the  old  standard  histories  in  the  Dutch 
language,  used  by  the  Eastern  people  on  the  history  of 
Holland,  as  Robertson's  Charles  V.,  Schiller's  Revolt 
of  the  Netherlands,  and  Watson's  Philip  II.  Dr.  Be- 
thune,  also,  delivered  all  over  the  East  his  great  lec- 
ture on  "Holland  and  the  Hollanders."  Later  on,  of 
course,  the  works  of  Motley,  Rev.  Hansen,  Douglas 
Campbell,  Wm.  Elliott  Griffis,  Van  Pelt,  and  others 
have  rendered  the  historical  importance  of  "Brave 
Little  Holland"  still  more  conspicuous. 

The  material  for  good  backsight  was  so  plentiful  in 
the  Reformed  Church  eighty  years  ago,  that  she  had 
and  repeatedly  showed  excellent  foresight,  in  avoid- 
ing the  breakers  of  Antinomian  inactivity  and  the 
rocks  of  Independency. 


250  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XVIII.    TIDINGS  FROM  AFAR 


THE  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  it  is  charged  by  the 
Seceders  of  Michigan  and  the  West,  deteriorated 
with  the  State  Church  of  Holland  on  the  one 
hand,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
secession  of  1834  in  the  Netherlands.  To  reconcile 
these  two  rather  contradictory  claims,  which  presup- 
pose at  the  same  time,  close  connection  with  Holland, 
and  little  or  no  connection  at  all,  it  not  an  easy  task. 
If  the  American  Church  had  taken  no  interest  in  the 
struggle  of  1815-1850,  for  pure  doctrine  in  the  old 
Mother  Church,  this  might  possibly  have  been  some 
evidence  of  deviation  from  genuine  Reformed  doctrine 
by  that  church.  But  the  claim  of  the  Seceders  is  so 
unfounded  as  to  cast  suspicion  on  the  motives  of  some 
of  the  claimants.  Wilfull  ignorance  is  worse  than 
real  ignorance,  and  the  fact  that  the  evidence  proving 
the  hollowness  of  their  claims  was  always  accessible, 
may  show  something  worse  than  bona  fide  ignorance. 
The  facts  are  completely  and  strongly  against  the 
Seceders,  as  this  and  the  following  chapter  will  show. 
The  Reformed  Church  in  America  became  almost 
independent  from  the  Church  in  Holland  in  1771,  and 
completely  so  in  1792.  The  French  conquest  of  Hol- 
land in  1796,  and  the  Napoleonic  wars,  cut  off  all  com- 
munication with  Holland.  In  1800  (Minutes  of  Gen- 
eral Synod,  p.  281),  no  answer  was  received  from 
Holland,  "owing  to  the  interrupted  state  of  affairs 
there,"  and  in  1820  correspondence  was  not  yet  re- 
sumed. But  the  terrible  state  of  Europe,  and  the  ap- 
parent collapse  of  true  religion  on  the  Continent,  was 
a  matter  of  such  keen  interest  in  America  that,  in 
1813,  for  example,  in  the  Albany  Reformed  Church, 


TIDINGS      FROM      AFAR  251 

Kev.  Bradford,  at  the  request  of  the  Consistory, 
preached  on  the  "Present  Dutch  Struggle  for  Inde- 
pendence." From  the  study  of  the  situation  in  Hol- 
land it  is  plain  that  great  things  were  expected  from 
the  deliverance  from  the  French  Age  of  Reason,  after 
the  battle  of  Leipsic.  But  the  religious  re-awakening 
failed  to  come,  and  already  Rev.  Dr.  Romeyn  wrote  to 
Dr.  Livingston,  from  Utrecht  (where  Livingston 
graduated  in  1770),  under  date  of  June  12,  1814,  a  let- 
ter which  Livingston  made  public.  The  same  letter 
was,  in  1829,  published  in  Gunn's  Livingston,  p.  412. 
Dr.  Romeyn  wrote:  "The  character  of  this  people, 
my  dear  Sir,  has  degenerated  in  moral  and  religious 
excellence  since  your  residence  here.  The  judgments 
of  God  upon  the  country  have  not  produced  suitable 
humiliation  and  repentance  in  the  inhabitants.  The 
public  worship  of  God  is  not  so  well  attended  as  it 
used  to  be  previous  to  1795.  The  young  and  rising 
generation  are  very  generally  Frenchified,  loose  in 
principles,  and  negligent  of  all  religious  duties.  Great 
apprehensions  are  entertained  by  the  pious  fathers 
and  mothers  in  this  Israel,  for  the  future,  in  conse- 
quenee  of  this  state  in  which  the  youth  have  fallen. 
Many,  too  many,  of  the  younger  ministers  and  of  the 
students  in  theology,  are  destitute  of  personal  religion, 
though  not  immoral.  They  are  inclining  to  liberal 
views  in  religion,  and  approximating  a  scheme  of  doc- 
trine hostile  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  The  good 
old  works  of  Hellenbroek,  Schortinghuis,  Brakel,  etc., 
are  fast  going  out  of  date.  Alphonso  Turretin  is,  to 
my  grief,  superseding  Francis,  his  father,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  the  learned.  Vitringa  and  Venema  stand 
high,  but  Witsius  is  rather  on  the  wane.  Theaters 
and  stores  were  open  on  Sunday  under  Napoleon,  and 
[still]  are  in  Amsterdam  and  The  Hague.  The  Sab- 
bath is  wofully  profaned.  The  impressions  of  grati- 
tude for  deliverance  from  the  French  at  first  were 
very  deep,  and  the  expressions  thereof  very  general. 
But  the  people  begin  to  forget  the  Lord,  and  the  work 
of  His  hand.     Indeed,  it  appears  to  me  from  what  I 


252  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

have  seen  and  heard,  that  heavier  judgments  are  in 
store  for  these  lands.  I  fear  these  judgments  will  be 
chiefly  spiritual."  This  was  written  in  1814  about 
Holland,  while  just  before  this  date  the  great  standard 
Dutch  theological  works  were  made  available  also  in 
translations  to  the  American  Dutch  Church.  Even 
the  annotations  to  the  Staten  Bijbel  were  published 
in  English  by  Rev.  Kuypers  in  1799. 

In  1826,  two  agents  were  instructed  to  go  to  Hol- 
land to  obtain  accurate  information  about  the  church 
there,  and  to  obtain  books  for  the  schools  in  America. 
In  the  Magazine  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
(1826-30)  vol.  1,  p.  54,  a  writer  says  "our  church  has 
escaped  the  leaven  of  old  Holland,  which  I  fear,  has  be- 
come a  nest  of  impure  doctrine.  Remonstrantism  is 
paving  the  way  for  Socinianism.  They  have  neglected 
exposition  of  Reformed  doctrine  according  to  Hellen- 
broek  and  the  Heidelberg."  On  the  other  hand,  on  p. 
349,  vol.  4,  we  find  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  and  Scot- 
tish churches  are  "steadfast  in  the  faith  on  account 
of  thorough  instruction  of  the  children."  In  fact,  the 
four  volumes  of  the  Magazines  are  full  of  references 
to  the  contrast  between  religious  conditions  at  home 
and  in  Holland.  Vol.  2,  p.  379,  mentions  the  "prospect 
of  a  revival  of  pure  religion  in  Holland,"  and  on  p. 
283,  Rev.  Irving's  statement  that  there  are  left  in  Hol- 
land only  about  five  faithful  ministers  is  criticized  as 
— "we  think,  an  exaggeration";  and  on  p.  186,  the 
Java  government  is  criticized  for  its  irreligious  atti- 
tude toward  the  natives.  On  p.  124,  vol.  3,  the  Synod's 
committee  to  go  to  Holland  is  reported  not  to  have 
acted,  on  account  of  conditions  in  Holland. 

On  his  return  from  a  trip  to  Europe  in  1829,  Rev. 
Dr.  Stephan  N.  Rowan,  of  New  York,  preached  a  ser- 
mon which  was  published  for  the  benefit  of  one  of  the 
Ladies  Societies  of  the  Collegiate  Church,  in  which  he 
refers,  on  p.  26,  to  the  universities  of  Germany  and 
Holland,  with  their  "erudite  feast  of  Neology  and 
rationalism"  as  follows:  "They  have  borrowed  from 
the  illustrious  atheists  of  France,  whatever  in  their 


TIDINGS       FROM       AFAR  253 

system  may  seem  to  possess  the  grace  of  intelligence, 
and  they  have  applied  with  too  fatal  success  the  petty 
craft  of  disguising  the  stolen  doctrine  under  the  name 
and  forms  of  Christianity!"  In  the  same  connection, 
referring  to  Holland,  Dr.  Rowan  says,  "The  Reformed 
need  Reformation!  In  Holland,  the  truth,  it  is  be- 
lieved, is  generally  preached;  but  too  generally  re- 
ceived in  its  form  without  its  power!  The  Remon- 
strants against  the  Synod  of  Dort  were  stunned,  but 
not  destroyed;  and,  since  the  French  Revolution,  the 
once  saving  and  steady  habits  of  that  excellent  people 
have  yielded  to  French  principles  and  practices." 

All  of  the  above  and  much  more  relative  to  the  sit- 
uation in  the  Netherlands  was  published  before  1830. 

In  1832,  Minutes,  p.  133,  the  General  Synod  re- 
ceived a  long  delayed  answer  to  its  letter  of  1830  to 
the  United  Associate  Church  of  Scotland,  dated  Glas- 
gow, June  5,  1832,  which  reads,  "You  mourn,  dear 
brethren,  over  the  declension  of  your  Parent  Church. 
It  has,  indeed,  we  fear,  partaken  of  the  degeneracy  of 
the  early  churches  of  the  Reformation  on  the  continent 
of  Europe.  But  symptoms  of  convalescence  are  begin- 
ning to  appear  in  the  European  Protestant  Churches, 
which  like  the  church  at  Sardis,  were  ready  to  die." 
Here  we  have  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  mourning 
the  declension  of  the  Church  in  Holland,  in  her  letter 
to  the  Scottish  Secession  Church,  in  1830. 

In  1834  Rev.  David  Abeel  was  sent  to  Holland  to 
procure  concert  of  action  in  the  proposed  missions  in 
the  Dutch  East  Indies,  in  which  purpose  he  succeeded. 
(Rev.  Abeel  did  not  hear  of  De  Cock's  secession  while 
there,  because  this  happened  after  his  departure).  In 
1836  the  first  missionaries  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  left  for  Borneo,  and  so  the  State  Church  and 
the  Dutch  government  consented  to  the  Borneo  Mis- 
sion of  the  American  Church  at  the  time  when  they 
were  belaboring  the  Seceders  in  their  own  country. 
In  1838,  the  matter  of  said  persecution  came  before 
the  General  Synod  upon  relation  of  the  Classis  of 
Poughkeepsie  and  the  Particular  Synod  of  New  York, 


254         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

who  had  heard  that  "in  Holland,  the  land  of  our  fath- 
ers, a  persecution  for  righteousness'  sake  has  been 
carried  on  with  the  approbation,  if  not  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  government;  which  appears  to  us  not  only 
so  contrary  to  the  light  and  liberal  principles  of  the 
age  in  which  we  live,  but  to  be  a  strange  work  in  our 
fatherland,  which  in  former  ages,  proved  the  house  of 
refuge  for  all  Europe."  The  sending  of  a  letter  of 
remonstrance  was  deferred  as  a  matter  of  delicacy 
and  difficulty,  without  facts  or  documents  as  a  guide 
to  official  action.  The  fear  of  breaking  up  the  Borneo 
Mission  was  the  main  deterrent;  add  to  this  that,  no 
doubt,  with  so  many  of  the  clergymen  in  the  State 
Church  still  loyal  to  the  old  standards,  the  reports 
were  conflicting;  hence  the  General  Synod  was  right 
in  being  cautious  under  such  circumstances.  In  1839 
the  trouble  with  the  Dutch  government  in  Java  began, 
whereupon  a  letter  was  sent  to  the  King  of  Holland, 
to  which,  in  1840,  Bleeker,  the  American  representa- 
tive at  The  Hague  replied  for  the  Dutch  Missionary 
Society,  to  the  effect  that  the  American  missionaries 
in  Java  or  Borneo  must  be  ordained  in  Holland  or  act 
under  the  Dutch  Missionary  Society.  The  General 
Synod  refused  to  submit  to  these  conditions,  but,  in 
1841,  submitted  to  the  requirement  that  the  mission- 
aries spend  a  year  at  Batavia  to  acquire  languages, 
etc.  In  1842,  Rev.  Isaac  Ferris  was  sent  to  Holland  to 
have  these  restrictions  removed,  and  the  next  year  he 
reports  the  Dutch  Government  "assured  protection, 
but  refused  to  remove  restrictions."  The  attitude  of 
that  government,  the  Synod  said,  "imparted  a  gloomy 
aspect  to  those  missions."  In  1844,  a  local  Dutch  offi- 
cer is  reported  as  hampering  the  Borneo  Missions,  and 
although  those  annoyances  were  reported  as  removed 
the  next  year,  the  Synod  referred  to  those  and  other 
annoyances  as  occurring  "under  the  professedly  Chris- 
tian government  of  the  land  of  our  forefathers." 

Shall  any  one,  with  these  facts  before  him,  still 
deny  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  eighty  years 
ago,  did  not  know  the  attitude  of  the  Dutch  govern- 


TIDINGS      FROM       AFAR  255 

ment  and  the  State  Church  on  religious  questions? 
Holland,  after  the  long  wars  had  a  hard  task,  and  men 
like  Thorbecke  were  great  statesmen,  no  doubt,  and 
the  advance  agents  of  British  landgrabbers  had  to  be 
watched  in  the  Indies ;  but  the  American  Church  soon 
learned  that  the  position  of  Thorbecke  and  others  with 
reference  to  the  Seceders  at  home,  and  to  the  Ameri- 
can Borneo  Mission,  was  both  part  and  parcel  of  the 
rationalistic  enmity  toward  the  "Good  Old  Way"  of 
Christ. 

In  1845,  the  old  Classis  of  Amsterdam  finally  wrote, 
saying  that  the  Church  in  Holland,  almost  ruined  in 
1795-1813,  was  re-organized,  and  held  the  old  doc- 
trines of  grace,  but  that  a  number  had  acted  rashly 
and  seceded.  But,  in  1846,  Dr.  De  Witt  visited  Hol- 
land to  procure  more  historical  material,  and  visited 
Rev.  H.  P.  Scholte,  one  of  the  Seceders,  at  Utrecht.  Dr. 
De  Witt  reported,  in  1847,  the  rising  tide  of  emi- 
gration, especially  among  the  Seceders,  and  the  ar- 
rival in  America  of  the  Van  Raalte  party  in  November, 

1846,  and  of  the  Scholte  party  in  May,  1847.    In  June, 

1847,  the  General  Synod  expressed  itself  thus:  "A 
new  body  of  Pilgrims  has  reached  our  shores  from 
Holland,  the  land  of  our  fathers,  and  the  shelter  in 
ages  gone  by  to  outcasts  by  persecution.  The  move- 
ment will  not  lose  on  the  score  of  moral  grandeur,  by 
comparison  with  any  associated  act  of  emigration  in 
the  history  of  our  country.  The  Puritan  and  the 
Huguenot  especially  are  their  debtors,  and  ourselves 
will  be  recreant  to  the  power  of  our  principles,  to  the 
name  we  are  honored  to  bear,  and  the  descent  we 
warrantably  boast,  if  we  fail  to  welcome  them  in  their 
enterprise,  and  to  express  our  love,  not  in  words  or 
tongue,  but  in  deed  and  in  truth.  Providence  has  cast 
the  lot  of  the  first  detachment  in  the  immediate  vicin- 
ity of  our  Western  churches  [Classis  of  Michigan  and 
Illinois]  ;  a  second  has  arrived  [Scholte's  party],  and 
thousands  more  are  on  their  way — and  we  have  now 


256  LANDMARKS       OF      THE       REFORMED       FATHERS 

brought  within  our  reach  an  opportunity  of  securing 
the  accession  of  a  people,  poor  and  afflicted,  it  is  true, 
yet  possessed  of  a  faith  precious,  tried,  and  purified. 
Resolved,  That  we  hereby  express  our  sympathy  with 
the  emigrants  from  Holland,  and  that  we  commend 
them  to  the  prayers,  attention,  kind  offices,  and  the 
practical  regards  of  our  churches." 


WHAT   THE   REF.    CHURCH    KNEW   ABOUT   HOLLAND      257 


XIX.    WHAT  THE  CHURCH   KNEW 
ABOUT  HOLLAND 


THE  foregoing  chapter  has  shown  us  that  the  of- 
ficial position  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
America  on  the  persecutions  in  Holland  was  in- 
fluenced by  the  ties  of  respect  for  the  old  Holland  of 
William  the  Silent  and  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  by 
the  fact  that  her  own  missionary  heroes  in  Borneo 
were  exposed  to  the  displeasure  and  dangers  antici- 
pated from  the  unfriendly  Dutch  government  and 
church.  But  the  fact  that  the  American  Church 
fathomed  the  deplorable  depths  to  which  religion  in 
Holland  had  fallen  at  that  time,  is  made  clearer  by  a 
cursory  glance  at  the  files  of  The  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer. In  that  paper  is  found  a  fund  of  information 
on  "the  declension  of  the  Parent  Church,"  and  of  the 
other  churches  of  Europe,  suflficient  for  a  large  volume. 
In  the  March  2,  1833,  issue.  Rev.  Fliedner's  two  vol- 
umes on  Holland,  shov/ing  the  ravages  of  rationalism 
in  Holland,  are  reviewed,  and  in  the  March  16  issue, 
Fliedner's  revelations  are  called  a  "shock  to  the  struc- 
ture of  the  Church"  of  Holland.  Anent  this  the  editor 
says,  "We  await  with  solicitude  tidings  from  the  land 
endeared  to  us  by  many  recollections  of  noble  daring 
in  the  cause  of  liberty,  and  yet  nobler  enthusiasm  in 
the  restitution  of  primitive  faith  and  order."  The 
issue  of  July  2,  1836,  reports  the  secession  in  Holland, 
on  account  of  laxity  in  adhesion  to  the  Reformed  Con- 
fession, as  well  as  the  full  story  of  Rev.  De  Cock's  sus- 
pension and  deposition,  and  of  the  Evangelical  Hymns 
question;  Aug.  6,  De  Cock  and  Scholte  are  discussed, 
and  also  the  letter  of  Donker  Curtius,  head  of  the 


258         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORISIED      FATHERS 

The  Hague  Synod,  and  two  Dutch  periodicals,  Stem- 
men  over  Godsdienst,  Enz.,  and  the  Geestelijk  Maga- 
zijn  (A  Voice  on  Religion,  etc.,  and  the  Spiritual  Maga- 
zine), advocating  religious  reform    in    Holland,    are 
quoted  as  exchanges  of  the  Intelligencer;  March  4, 
1837,  De  Cock,  Scholte  and  Brummelkamp  were  writ- 
ten up,  and  also  Prof.  Vander  Palm  of  Leyden,  while 
November  4  and  25  there  appeared  articles  on  De 
Cock,  etc.,  and  the  persecutions ;  in  July,  1837,  in  four 
issues,  the  Rise  and  Spread  of  Neology  is  discussed, 
as    translated   from    "Stemmen."     "Neology"   means 
coining  new  ideas,  and,  in  this  connection,  signifies 
rationalism  in  religion.     "Stemmen  over  Godsdienst" 
drew  a  distinction  between  rationalism  and  neology 
by  insisting  that  rationalism  subjected  everything  to 
the    test    of   human  reason,  while  neology  subjected 
ever5rthing  to  the  test  of  human  reason  and  the  Scrip- 
tures.    The   articles   in  the   Intelligencer   frequently 
refer    to    Capadose,  De  Costa,  Bilderdyk,    and    Van 
Prinsterer,  and  withal  give  a  most  vivid  account  of  the 
defection  from  true  doctrine.     We  find  many  expres- 
sions which  show  deep  insight  into  religious  affairs  of 
Holland  like    the    following:      "Prof.  Van  De  Palm, 
the  Dutch  Cicero,  evidently  has  many  imitators."    In 
the  issue  of  November  4,  Hofstede  De  Groot  and  the 
Groningen  University  are  written  up,  and  De  Cock's 
course  is  explained;  November  25,  another  report  on 
the  persecutions,  and  Dr.  Robert  Baird's  letter  about 
religion  in  Holland  to  Prof.  Proudfit  is  printed,   in 
which  many  details  are  given,  such  as  Scholte's  preach- 
ing on  boats,  the  troubles  of  his  attorney  Van  Hall, 
the  taking  of  the  clothes  of  a  poor  woman  who  could 
not  pay  her  fine,  and  of  a  man  of  77  years  dying  in 
prison  while  confined  on  account  of  an  unpaid  fine;  in 
the  July  25,  1840,  issue,  appeared  another  letter  by 
Dr.  Baird,  in  which  he  says  that  Holland  is  now  like 
England  when  Wesley  and  Whitfield  began  their  cru- 
sade.   In  this  letter  Dr.  Baird  also  outlines  a  plan  for 
sending  a  commission  to  Holland  to  regulate  the  Bor- 
neo Missions,  and  proposes  the  sending  to  Holland  of 


WHAT   THE   REF.    CHURCH    KNEW   ABOUT   HOLLAND      259 

a  few  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  who 
could  speak  Dutch,  to  preach  the  old  gospel,  especially 
in  the  colleges,  as  he  thinks  the  effect  would  be  mar- 
velous. Dr.  Baird  was  a  great  traveler,  and 
knew  the  Reformed  Church  both  in  America  and  in 
Holland,  and  his  suggestion  of  sending  missionaries  to 
Holland  is  a  rather  striking  testimony  as  to  the  ortho- 
doxy of  the  American  Dutch  Church.  Dr.  Baird  was 
quite  an  eminent  specialist  on  the  questions  of  doc- 
trine. In  April,  1840,  the  Netherlands  Missionary 
Society  gets  four  columns  in  the  Intelligencer ;  on  Octo- 
ber 2,  the  recent  action  of  the  Synod  of  The  Hague 
relative  to  the  Seceders  is  reviewed;  and  in  a  column 
on  "Religion  in  Holland"  we  note  the  striking  state- 
ment that,  "The  prevailing  theology  there  is  Armi- 
nianism  under  the  banner  of  Calvinistic  Standards,  in 
many  cases  strongly  Pelagian,  and  in  a  few  borders  on 
Socinianism  and  German  Neology."  Could  the  sit- 
uation of  that  day  in  Holland  be  expressed  any  better 
today?  The  same  article  mentions  Rev.  V.  D.  Willi- 
gen's  "True  Nature  of  Christianity,"  a  prize-book 
written  by  a  clergyman  of  the  State  Church  in  Hol- 
land, and  praised  by  some  of  the  Church  dignitaries, 
although  it  was  decidedly  heterodox.  The  editor  says 
of  this  work,  "How  is  the  fine  gold  become  dim !  How 
is  truth  fallen  in  the  street!"  On  December  3,  1842, 
appears  Dr.  Ferris'  report  of  his  visit  to  Holland  in 
connection  with  the  Borneo  Mission.  The  Dutch  gov- 
ernment claimed  so  many  foreigners  came  to  the  East 
Indies  under  different  pretexts,  that  a  general  rule 
was  considered  necessary,  for  missionaries  are  well  as 
for  others.  Dr.  Ferris'  report  was  necessarily  con- 
fined to  the  object  for  which  he  was  sent,  but,  before 
he  returned,  he  had  lectured  at  several  places  in  Hol- 
land on  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  The  Seceders 
in  Holland  had  the  satisfaction  of  reading  a  succinct 
and  accurate  account  of  the  American  Reformed 
Church  in  their  journal,  De  Reformatie,  of  which  Rev. 
Scholte  was  editor.  November  26,  1842,  reveals  Rev. 
Ledeboer's  reply  to  Ferris,  on  behalf  of  the  Nether- 


260  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

lands  Missionary  Society;  September  9,  1843,  gives  a 
column  on  Religion  in  Holland ;  May  28, 1846,  in  "State 
of  Religion  in  Holland,"  appears  Capadose's  letter  to 
the  Free  Church  of  Scotland ;  the  May  14  issue,  copies 
three  columns  from  the  Edinboro  Witness  on  condi- 
tions in  Holland,  detailing  also  a  meeting  at  Groen  Van 
Prinsterer's  house;  October  15,  appeared  the  Appeal 
to  the  Faithful  of  Van  Raalte  and  Brummelkamp, 
dated  Arnhem,  May,  1846,  translated  at  Albany  by 
an  immigrant,  Hengeveld,  who  ten  years  before  had 
joined  Wyckoff's  church;  and  November  26,  the  fight 
of  De  Cock,  Scholte,  Brummelkamp,  etc.,  for  reform 
is  discussed.  In  1840,  one  issue  of  The  Intelligencer 
even  described  the  rise  of  "the  Churches  under  the 
Cross,"  in  the  Kampen  region. 

From  this  time  on  there  are  many  articles  on  the 
Dutch  immigrants,  and  on  January  18,  1849,  another 
meeting  at  Van  Prinsterer's  house  is  reported,  in  fur- 
therance of  reform  in  the  State  Church.  After  that 
date  the  articles  on  Holland  are  many,  and  further 
reference  to  them  is  hardly  necessary  here.  But  on 
February  25,  1856,  a  remarkable  letter  by  Rev.  A.  W. 
McClure,  written  from  Europe,  on  the  religious  phase 
in  Holland,  is  published,  in  which  it  is  again  suggested 
to  send  as  missionaries  to  Holland  a  committee  of 
ministers,  "including  one  or  two  from  the  Hollanders 
in  the  West,"  to  preach  and  work  in  the  Netherlands, 
as  a  means  for  reviving  pure  religion  there.  McClure 
refers  to  "the  American  Dutch  Church,  with  its  pure 
and  educated  ministry,  still  holding  fast  the  integrity 
and  purity  of  the  faith  of  the  Reformation  as  set  forth 
in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the  Canons  of  Dort," 
so  that  they  can  "bear  noble  testimony  to  the  truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus." 

There  were  many  sources  of  information  about 
Holland  open  to  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  as  the 
following  for  example:  Bound  in  with  the  minutes 
of  the  Synod  of  the  True  Dutch  Church  for  1836  are 
six  pages  of  matter  on  conditions  in  the  churches  of 


WHAT   THE   REF,    CHURCH    KNEW   ABOUT    HOLLAND      261 

Holland,  and  quotations  from  the  Boston  Recorder  of 
June  16,  1836,  the  Intelligencer  of  May  28,  the  Even- 
ing Post  of  June  28,  and  the  Biblical  Repertory.  This 
review  also  refers  to  "Stemmen"  and  to  the  "Geest- 
lijke  Magazijn,"  published  in  the  interest  of  church 
reform  in  the  Netherlands.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  even  the  Secession  Church  in  America  was  in- 
formed as  to  the  secession  and  persecutions  in  the 
Netherlands.  As  early  as  1826  (Minutes,  p.  12)  this 
little  Secession  Church  had  already  used  the  following 
language:  "The  king  of  Holland  has  arrogated  to 
himself  and  exercises  the  power  of  an  absolute  lord, 
and  has  reduced  the  present  degenerate  and  corrupt 
church  of  Holland  to  abject  slavery."  In  fact,  the 
secular  press,  as  well  as  the  religious  journals,  gave 
the  essentials  of  the  movements  in  Holland  correctly, 
so  that  the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  regular  and 
seceded,  had  a  complete  record  before  them.  The 
Scottish  Christian  Herald  of  those  days  contributed 
a  great  deal  of  information  on  the  subject.  One  report 
stated  that  in  the  State  Church  only  Clarisse  and  Van- 
der  Palm,  among  the  professors,  adhered  to  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism. 

One  of  the  books  extensively  read  by  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Reformed  Church  was  Dr.  Thos.  Scott's 
History  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  first  edition  issued  in 
1819,  and  republished  in  1841,  with  a  long  introduc- 
tion by  Prof.  Miller  of  Princeton  Seminary.  On  p. 
47,  Prof.  Miller  says,  "Indeed,  sad  to  say,  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  past,  in  the  kingdom  of  Holland,  Pelagian 
and  Unitarian  sentiments  have  obtained  such  cur- 
rency, that  the  main  difficulty  has  been  for  the  friends 
of  truth  to  obtain  permission  to  preach,  unobstructed, 
the  pure  Gospel."  This  is  only  a  casual  reference  to 
the  persecutions  in  Holland,  but  the  Princeton  pub- 
lications of  that  day,  as  of  the  whole  Presbyterian 
Church  in  America,  were  actualy  wrought  up  about 
conditions  in  Holland  and  western  Europe. 

The  foregoing  citations  from  the  files  of  the  Intel- 


262  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ligencer  are  not  exclusive ;  the  writer  has  but  scratched 
the  surface.    The  paper  literally  bristles  with  articles 
on  the  religious  life  in  Holland.    And  what  riveted  the 
attention  of  the  American  Church  especially  on  the 
secession  and  resulting  persecution  was  the  anomaly 
of  the  usually  liberal  government  and  people  of  Hol- 
land, in  the  nineteenth  century,  persecuting  those  who 
clung  to  the  religion  of  the  Eighty  Years  War  and  its 
synods,  for  doing  the  things  which  a  few  centuries  be- 
fore had  sent  thousands  of  their  forefathers  to  mar- 
tyrdom and  the  stake.    The  secession  of  1834,  and  the 
persecution  following,  were  not  done  in  a  corner:  the 
secular  press  of  Europe,  Great  Britain,  and  America 
sifted  the  matter  thoroughly.     The  press  and  pulpit 
of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  fairly  rang  with  de- 
nunciations of  the  outrageous  illiberality  of  the  Dutch 
government  and  Church.      This    American    Church, 
claiming  rightfully  historical  and  apostolic  succession 
from  the  great  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  after  a 
lapse  of  about  forty  years,  with  communication  with 
Holland  cut  off  by  the  Napoleonic  wars  and  the  Age  of 
Reason,  and  having  acquired  her  independence  from 
the  Classis  of  Amsterdam  before  the  sluice  gates  of 
infidelity  were  opened  over  Holland,  was  moved  as 
never  before,  when  she  found  the  Mother  Church  al- 
most in  ruins,  and  the  government  even  hostile  to  her 
own  Dyak  Mission  schools  in  Borneo.     And  what  in- 
tensified the  feeling  was  the  fight  for  life  the  American 
Dutch  Church  herself  had  on   her  hands  for  years 
against  Unitarians  and  Catholics,  a  fact  which  ac- 
counts for  the  pointed  arguments  in  her  newspaper, 
synodical  acts,  and  published  sermons  against  Roman- 
ism and  Rationalism  in  her  midst  and  in  Holland.    She 
had  a  first  hand  acquaintance  with  the  enemies  of  Re- 
formed truth,  and  was  therefore  logically  ready  to 
sympathize  with  the  fighting  saints  of  the  De  Cock- 
Scholte-Van  Raalte  band  of  reformers.    A  little  study 
of  her  literature,  revealing,  as  it  does,  the  long  battle 
with  the  cohorts  of  liberalism  and  the  encroachments 
of  Romanism,  at  home,  reveals  also  fully  that  the  Re- 


WHAT   THE   REF.    CHURCH    KNEW   ABOUT   HOLLAND      263 

formed  Dutch  Church  in  America  of  that  time  had  a 
fuller  and  correcter  knowledge  of  the  situation  in  Hol- 
land than  we  have  it  today  from  Verhagen's  and  other 
histories. 

It  is  true,  the  editorial  tone  of  the  Intelligencer 
was  hopeful  that  the  secession  would  sweep  Holland 
back  to  her  moorings,  but  the  The  Hague  Synod  was 
always  under  suspicion.  On  January  16,  1851,  speak- 
ing of  the  first  newspaper — De  Hollander — published 
in  Holland,  Michigan,  and  of  the  pilgrims  from  the 
Netherlands,  the  editor  of  the  Intelligencer  voices  the 
sentiment  of  the  Eastern  Reformed  Church,  for  twenty 
years  past,  in  these  words :  "But  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  at  present,  in  Holland,  a  lamentable  dereliction 
from  the  principles  and  practice  of  vital  godliness  has 
taken  place.  Many  places  where  once  the  Divine  Re- 
deemer was  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth  are  now 
laid  waste  and  burnt  up  by  the  fires  of  infidelity  and 
Socinianism.  The  universities  where  once  our  Fre- 
linghuysens,  Hardenberghs  and  Livingstons  were  edu- 
cated for  the  ministry  have  become  corrupted  with 
error  and  false  doctrine.  That  orthodoxy  and  exem- 
plary Christian  deportment,  which  distinguished  our 
Holland  progenitors,  has  given  way  to  the  most  dan- 
gerous and  soul  destroying  errors,  and  a  formality  in 
practice,  no  less  alarming  in  its  consequences,  has  suc- 
ceeded." 

We  have  now  seen  what  the  General  Synod  knew 
about  the  degeneracy  of  religion  in  Holland,  and  also 
what  The  Intelligencer  told  the  people  about  it.  Of 
course,  all  the  rank  and  file  did  not  remember  all  this 
information,  but  the  leaders,  the  watchmen  on  the 
walls,  knew  all  about  it,  and  that  is  the  important  fact, 
after  all.  The  rank  and  file  of  the  Western  Dutch 
churches  know  little  or  nothing  about  the  history  of 
their  own  churches,  but  the  leaders  know  the  salient 
features,  and  from  this  we  must  judge  a  church.  By 
this  standard  the  information  the  Eastern  Church  had 


264  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

about  the  secession  in  Holland  was  complete,  and  hence 
the  criticism  of  the  Western  Seceders,  on  this  score, 
is  without  foundation. 

A  writer  defending  the  secession  in  Michigan  in 
1857  and  later,  Prof.  Hemkes  of  Grand  Rapids,  said 
on  p.  256  of  his  Rechtsbestaan,  "The  Reformed  Church 
here  is  a  plant  of  the  Netherlands  Reformed  Church 
of  1719  [1619?],  and  as  a  church  did  not  know  the 
seceders  church  in  Holland  at  all,  and  did  not  know  the 
history  of  Revs.  De  Cock,  Van  Velzen  and  Brummel- 
kamp.  See  article  of  Rev.  C.  Vorst  in  De  Wachter  of 
April,  1893.  Our  church  [the  seceded]  is  a  plant  of 
the  Seceded  Reformed  Church  in  Holland  after  1834." 
Whether  it  is  possible  to  crowd  more  errors  into  one 
paragraph  than  Hemkes  did,  is  a  question,  for  we  have 
seen  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  as  a  church,  as 
shown  by  her  Synod,  her  newspapers,  books  and 
pamphlets,  did  know  the  essence  of  the  secession  of 
1834,  and  did  actually  know  the  story  of  De  Cock, 
Scholte  and  other  Seceders.  The  testimony  of  Rev. 
Vorst  quoted  by  Rev.  Hemkes  is  absolutely  worthless 
on  this  subject.  Rev.  Vorst's  record  will  appear  later 
on,  and  let  it  be  said  in  advance  that  it  is  such  as  to 
preclude  forever  the  possibility  of  giving  any  weight 
to  his  statements  wherever  they  touch  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Reformed  churches.  The  seceded  church  in 
the  West  is  not  a  slip  of  the  secession  of  1834  any  more 
than  the  western  branch  of  the  Reformed  Church  is, 
but  it  is  a  plant  of  certain  unimportant  factions  of 
that  secession,  just  as  Van  Raalte  and  Vander  Meulen 
represented  other  and  more  reasonable  factions. 

Another  Christian  Reformed  writer  also  loses  sight 
of  all  the  information  hereinbefore  referred  to.  Rev. 
Beets  in  his  Zestig  Jaren,  p.  70,  labors  to  cast  a  fog 
over  this  matter,  and  speaking  of  Van  Raalte  joining 
the  Eastern  Church,  insists  on  the  lack  of  information, 
and  says  "there  was  in  those  days  not  a  single  work  on 
the  history  of  the  old  (Am.)  Dutch  Church  worthy  of 
mention."  Such  a  statement,  while  easily  made  in 
order  to  build  a  legend,  is  a  bald  exaggeration.    The 


WHAT    THE    REF.    CHURCH    KNEW    ABOUT    HOLLAND      265 

history  of  the  American  Reformed  Church,  until  about 
1750,  is  the  history  of  the  old  Church  of  Holland,  and 
of  the  subsequent  history  there  were  many  pamphlets 
in  circulation,  while  the  whole  matter  received  thor- 
ough treatment  in  Gunn's  Livingston,  which  was  de- 
signed as  a  history  of  the  church  till  about  1825 ;  after 
which  date,  besides  the  printed  Synod  minutes  since 
1784,  the  different  digests  published  gave  an  adequate 
history  of  the  church,  not  to  mention  Baird's,  Brown- 
lee's,  O'Callaghan's,  and  several  other  works  of  an 
earlier  date,  which  gave  the  history  of  the  Dutch 
Church  of  the  East  rather  thorough  consideration.  In 
the  West  this  legend  of  an  ignorant,  indifferent  Re- 
formed Church  is  growing;  and  the  secession  writers 
copy  one  another  faithfully,  without  investigating  the 
facts,  thus  making  the  "society  of  the  saints"  in  New 
York  and  New  Jersey  of  those  days  "suspected,"  as  the 
Fathers  of  Dort  phrased  it.  In  the  West  such  blind 
historians  lead  the  blind  further  astray ;  and  it  is  not  a 
miracle  that  truth  staggers  in  the  streets  of  the  west- 
ern Dutch  villages,  wounded  by  the  hands  of  those 
who  should  have  been  her  guardians. 

The  historical  matter  about  the  Reformed  Church 
fir  the  East  presented  in  the  foregoing  chapters,  well 
known  to  the  fathers  of  seventy  years  ago,  is  in  the 
West  almost  a  sealed  book.  These  things  are  not,  but 
ought  to  be  known ;  for  the  work  of  secession  of  sixty 
years  ago  finds  great  support  in  a  purely  imaginary 
state  of  affairs  on  the  Raritan  and  the  Hudson. 

It  is  easy,  for  a  time,  to  represent  facts  as  one 
wishes  them  to  be,  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  present  facts 
as  they  really  were.  The  latter  requires  research, 
common  honesty,  and  some  regard  to  the  sacredness  of 
truth.  The  writer  who  guesses  is  liable  to  miss  the 
mark,  and  lacks  the  first  instincts  of  a  historian,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  Seceder  writers  last  cited,  on 
the  points  in  question. 

Did  Prof.  Hemkes  and  his  copiers  not  know  that 
the  truth  of  history  would  wreak  vengeance  inexorable 


266  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

as  fate  on  their  attempts  to  defend  their  arbitrary  and 
extreme  position  by  suppressing  and  warping  histori- 
cal facts?  Did  they  not  see  that  sooner  or  later  their 
slip-shod  and  criminally  careless  treatment  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Reformed  Church,  East  and  West,  and  the 
forging  of  evidence  against  those  churches,  would  re- 
coil on  them,  and  that  as  writers,  or  rather  mis-writ- 
ers, of  history  they  would  in  due  time  be  found  out 
and  nailed  to  the  cross  of  historical  facts? 


SONS      OF      THUNDER  267 


XX.    SONS  OF  THUNDER 


WELL  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Church 
in  Holland  and  in  America,  as  the  fathers  of 
seventy  years  ago  were,  a  glance  in  the 
libraries  of  the  church  reveals  a  wealth  of  publications 
by  her  own  leaders.  Corwin's  Manual  gives  the  names 
of  hundreds  of  books  by  Reformed  clergymen  on  all 
subjects  of  pressing  importance.  The  Reformed 
Church  is  generally  spoken  of  in  those  days  by  out- 
siders as  "distinguished  for  her  learned  ministry," 
and,  judged  by  her  publications,  the  statement  is  not 
overdrawn.  It  is  impossible  to  mention  all  the  great 
men  in  the  church  of  that  time.  But  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  greatest  preachers  in  the  church  were 
distinctively  loyal  to  the  good  old  doctrines.  Dr.  Geo. 
W.  Bethune,  for  example,  the  Beecher  of  his  time,  left 
two  volumes  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (printed  in 
1869)  ;  and  Dr.  Berg  wrote  on  the  Catechism,  and 
many  other  did  likewise.  There  was  an  immense  mass 
of  literature  on  catechetical  subjects  current  among 
the  people.  The  strong  works  of  Brownlee,  Berg,  and 
Gordon  on  Romanism  deserve  attention  today.  The 
vast  majority  of  the  church's  publications,  however, 
were  strongly  and  directly  on  the  questions  of  Calvin- 
ism and  Arminianism,  and  the  "distinguishing  fea- 
tures of  the  Protestant  Reformation." 

Out  of  the  wilderness  of  books  and  pamphlets  of 
the  Church,  we  can  select  only  a  few  of  the  smaller 
ones  out  of  the  enormous  mass  published  since  1800. 
All  bear  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  conflict  with 
Unitarianism  and  the  like,  waged  by  the  Reformed 
Church  in  those  days. 


268  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

At  the  organization  of  the  Classis  of  Long  Island, 
June  1,  1814,  Rev.  Peter  Lowe  delivered  a  sermon  in 
the  Flatbush  church,  which  was  printed  and  scattered 
far  and  wide.  Note  the  following  quotation  from  this 
sermon:  "Let  the  faithful  servant  of  Christ  hold 
that  fast  which  he  has  received  from  the  evidence  of 
eternal  truth,  'that  no  man  take  his  crown,'  Rev.  3:11, 
and  the  rather,  as  the  hydra  of  Arianism  has  in  our 
day  regained  its  ancient  venom,  and  leagued  with 
the  Socinian  blashemy,  stalks  abroad  undaunted,  and 
sheds  its  baleful  influence  on  many  parts  of  our  coun- 
try. Say,  my  brethren,  is  not  that  contempt  which  is 
so  liberally  poured  on  God's  anointed  son,  our  blessed 
Lord,  one  of  the  fruitful  causes  of  his  present  con- 
troversy with  us? 

'When  thousands  drink  the  Arian  lie, 
Or,  poisoned  by  Socinus,  die'." 

In  1830,  Rev.  Nich.  I.  Marselus  of  the  Greenwich 
Reformed  Church,  published  "The  Good  Old  Way,"  a 
discourse  in  behalf  of  the  Sabbath  School  Union  of 
the  Reformed  Church,  based  on  Jer.  6:16,  "Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  Stand  ye  in  the  ways  and  see,  and  ask  for 
the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and  walk  therein, 
and  ye  shall  find  rest  for  your  souls."  It  was  a  clarion 
call  to  the  church  to  study  Catechism,  Creeds  and  Con- 
fessions in  the  Sundays  Schools,  as  a  safeguard  against 
infidelity,  error,  and  delusion.  "The  good  old  way"  of 
the  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  apostles  was  by  the  path 
of  "original  sin,  total  depravity,  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness,"  as  opposed  to  the  "damnable 
heresies  which  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  disbe- 
lieve the  Scriptures."  "Hold  fast  even  the  form  of 
sound  words,  lest  we  wander  from  the  good  way,  the 
old  paths,  by  which  the  apostles  and  primitive  Chris- 
tians have  entered  into  their  rest  above." 

Dr.  Isaac  Ferris,  the  chancellor  of  the  University 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  was  also  among  the  promi- 
nent writers  of  the  Church.  He  left  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  1816,  because  his  pastor  was  a  victim  of 


SONS      OF      THUNDER  269 

Hopkinsianism,  so-called.  Ferris  attended  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Seminary  at  Newburgh,  N.  Y.,  for 
two  years,  but  completed  his  course  at  New  Bruns- 
wick. In  his  "Fifty  Years'  Ministry  in  R.  C.  A. — a 
Memorial  Discourse,"  on  p.  16,  he  says,  "Mine  had 
been  a  careful  maternal  training  in  the  Assembly's 
Catechism,  and  my  associations  were  with  those  who 
rigidly  held  the  old-fashioned  orthodoxy,  and  my  pref- 
erences led  me  to  the  Dutch  Church  as  maintaining 
those  in  their  purity.  And  there  I  found  an  order  and 
a  form  of  service,  and  altogether  an  ecclesiastical 
economy  particularly  grateful  to  my  feelings.  This 
day  [Feb.  26,  1871],  more  than  ever  it  is  the  Church 
of  my  choice."  In  1848,  Dr.  Ferris  (who  had  made  a 
trip  to  Holland  in  1842),  published  his  "Ecclesiastical 
Characteristics  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  which  fur- 
nishes a  clear  explanation  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  in  all  her  relations.  On  p.  14,  he  refers  to  the 
Seceders  of  Holland  as  "now  flying  to  this  country," 
and  says  of  Holland,  "Semi-arianism  pours  over  the 
land  from  the  fountain  of  theology  at  Groningen,  and 
the  true  sons  of  the  Reformation  groan  over  a  calamity 
similar  to  that  which  tried  the  hearts  of  the  Puritans 
in  the  organization  of  Unitarianism." 

Dr.  Ferris  says  he  used  the  Hellenbroek  and  Heidel- 
berg catechisms,  and  visited  his  people  annually,  dur- 
ing his  pastorates  at  New  Brunswick,  Albany  and 
New  York.  He  was  very  instrumental,  in  1857,  in 
placing  all  the  foreign  missions  of  the  Church  under 
her  own  Board.  He  calls  the  college  and  seminary  at 
New  Brunswick  "the  hope  of  the  fathers,"  and  the 
"fountains  of  sound  knowledge  and  sound  theology." 
Of  the  Seminary  he  says  that  it  was  the  first  of  its 
kind  in  the  land,  with  an  endowment  [in  1848]  of 
$70,000.  "I  do  not  know  its  parallel."  Referring  to 
the  conservative  character  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  amidst  the  agitation  and  extremes  of  her 
neighbors  in  a  flood  of  innovations,  he  states  that  "she 
was  not  easily  excited,  fell  into  no  extremes,  and  while 
she  does  not  run  as  fast  as  some,  her  progress  is 


270  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

healthful  and  sound."  Dr.  Ferris'  "Characteristcs" 
reflects  the  inner  life  of  the  church  completely,  her 
bright  and  dark  sides,  and  describes  briefly  the  rise  of 
the  Sunday  school  and  the  partial  eclipse  of  regular 
catechetical  instruction  as  a  result. 

"Characteristics"  was  one  of  the  works  sent  to  Dr. 
Van  Raalte  in  1848,  and  the  latter  was  pleased  with 
what  Dr.  Ferris  said  about  the  greater  caution  ob- 
served in  receiving  church  members. 

Of  all  the  literary  products  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church,  nothing  gives  us  such  a  correct  impression  of 
conditions  in  the  Atlantic  States,  as  Rev.  James  Ro- 
meyn's  Crisis,  and  its  Claims  upon  the  Church  of 
God — a  sermon  delivered  before  the  General  Synod  in 
1842.  It  is  a  thunderblast  of  55  pages,  replete  with 
criticism  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  East,  and  of 
the  Reformed  Church  incidentally.  He  gives  the  lati- 
tude and  longitude  of  Churches,  in  such  scathing, 
scalding,  thought-strokes,  that  the  little  book  has  be- 
come, in  a  sense,  a  classis.  He  scores  the  press  and 
the  politicians;  he  says,  "the  infrequency  of  discipline 
bespeaks  the  disinclination  and  difficulty  of  exercis- 
ing it";  conversation  is  on  outward  forms,  not  on  ex- 
perimental religion,  the  hidden  man  of  the  heart,  union 
with  Christ,  Spirit  influence,  spiritual  conflict,  and 
the  reconciliation  of  dark  providences  with  covenant 
relations  and  privileges;  there  is  a  falling  off  of  per- 
sonal piety,  and  an  increase  of  sectarianism;  "there 
is  a  sword  whose  edge  and  point  are  penetrating  the 
vitals  of  this  land,  whose  handle  is  at  Rome" ;  Protes- 
tants have  been  unfaithful  to  their  trust,  and  degene- 
rate sons  of  the  martyrs  are  suffering  the  cause  to  go 
by  default,  while  popery,  with  giant  strides,  and  con- 
summate skill  is  laying  hold  of  the  keys  c'f  the  coun- 
try, touches  the  springs  of  influence,  of  legislation,  and 
shouts  from  outposts  captured  near  the  citadel" ;  the 
Calvinistic  Churches  cannot  plead  antiquity,  nor  the 
Fathers,  and  have  no  uncommanded  ceremonies  and 
liturgical  chimes ;  we  have  one  master,  the  Bible,  which 
alone  is  the  religion  of  Protestantism;  we  are  thrown 


SONS      OF      THUNDER  271 

on  our  own  resources,  the  intrinsic  worth  of  our  cause ; 
our  Church  holds  a  midway  station  between  dead  forms 
and  mystical  abstractions, — with  spirituality  the  es- 
sence, and  forms  enough  to  give  expression;  some 
praise  God  by  the  proxies  of  a  few  select  singers; 
without  Christ  crucified,  we  go  to  battle  without  the 
ark ;  the  doctrine  of  election  is  the  stay  of  ministerial 
labor,  because  it  is  bestowed  in  a  case  where  the  re- 
sult is  absolutely  sure;  "the  stern  unyielding  attitude 
of  the  Reformed  Church  subjects  us  to  reproach  for 
narrowness";  "our  brethren  abroad  [missionaries  in 
Borneo]  are  denied  rest  for  the  soles  of  their  feet,  and 
the  unworthy  jealousy  of  the  land  of  our  fathers  [Hol- 
land], has  proved  one  of  the  most  formidable  hin- 
drances"; "persecution  [during  the  Eighty  Years 
War]  drenched  Holland  in  slaughter,  and  made  the 
Reformed  Church  in  Holland  a  martyr  church,  and 
has  given  occasion  for  the  appeal  of  the  souls  under 
the  altar  for  the  avenging  of  their  blood" ;  an  academy 
must  be  established  in  the  Mississippi  valley,  and  "this 
attempt  would  be  worthy  of  a  church  whose  principles 
on  the  subject  of  a  competent  ministry,  whose  love  of 
truth  and  order  and  steadfastness  and  pecuniary  lib- 
erality have  rendered  her  a  praise";  the  great  pilot 
and  ruler  of  storms  is  on  board,  however,  and  let  us 
not  be  afraid  to  advance  or  do  right  for  fear  of  doing 
wrong ;  do  not  stereotype  the  Church  of  God ;  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  naturally  support  and  suppose  each 
other,  like  stones  in  an  arch ;  if  there  is  no  depravity, 
what  place  is  there  for  regeneration;  if  no  regenera- 
tion, what  cure  is  there  for  depravity;  if  there  is  no 
inability,  Christ  cannot  be  strength  to  any  one. 

The  abr.ve  excerpts  are  here  quoted  out  of  their 
connection,  but  in  that  sermon  Romeyn  discussed  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and  heresies,  thor- 
oughly and  logically,  and  his  "Crisis"  is  therefore 
probably  the  best  known  of  the  productions  of  the 
Eastern  Church.  The  thrilling,  piercing  voice  of  Ro- 
meyn was  never  forgotten  by  those  who  heard  him. 


272  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

He  concluded  as  follows :  "And  now,  0  Lord !  our  eyes 
are  unto  Thee.  We  wait  for  Thee  as  for  the  rain. 
Send  now  prosperity.  Wilt  thou  not  revive  us  again? 
Awake,  0  north  wind,  and  come  thou  south,  and  blow 
upon  this  garden,  that  the  spices  thereof  may  flow 
abroad." 

Rev.  Romeyn  was  the  best  informed  man  in  the 
Reformed  Church  on  conditions  in  Holland,  and  in 
1838,  and  as  instanced  above,  he  never  minced  mat- 
ters when  he  talked  on  the  religious  decline  and  the 
persecutions  in  Holland. 

The  above  works  have  been  mentioned  merely  by 
way  of  example,  for  the  list  could  be  expanded  in- 
definitely. It  is  clear  from  those  cited  and  the  many 
not  cited,  that  the  whole  religious  atmosphere  in  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  was  essentially  sound  and 
strictly  Reformed.  One  of  the  signs  of  that  time,  crop- 
ping out  in  those  publications  very  often,  in  addition 
to  the  fierce  fight  against  all  forms  of  heresy,  was  the 
rapid  growth  of  the  Sunday  School.  These  schools 
gradually  broke  down  the  weekly  catechetical  classes, 
so  that  it  was  necessary  to  use  the  Heidelberg  or  Hel- 
lenbroek  in  the  Sunday  Schools.  The  General  Synod 
hammered  on  this  subject  year  after  year,  and  Rev. 
Marselus'  "Good  Old  Way,"  we  have  seen,  was  a  special 
plea  for  such  instruction  in  the  Sunday  School.  While 
the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  one  of  the  Forms  of  Con- 
cord of  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  is,  no  doubt, 
strictly  Reformed  in  doctrine,  the  use  of  this  Cathe- 
chism,  was  prescribed  in  the  Rules  of  Church  Govern- 
ment only.  Such  Rules,  the  Synod  of  Dort  said,  "may" 
and  "ought"  to  be  "changed,"  etc.,  if  the  interest  of  the 
churches  require  it.  In  1833,  the  General  Synod 
changed  the  period  during  which  the  preaching  from 
the  Catechism  should  be  completed,  from  one  to  four 
years,  in  harmony  with  the  Dort  proviso,  that  the  "in- 
terest of  the  churches"  really  demanded  the  change. 
Naturally,  the  General  Synod,  as  the  actual  successor 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort  and  other  preceding  synods,  was 
the  body  authorized  to  legislate  on  this  subject,  and 


SONS      OF      THUNDER  273 

legislate  it  did.  A  man-made  Catechism,  prescribed 
for  us  by  man-made  church  rules,  however  excellent 
that  Catechism  was,  cannot  be  given  the  same  weight 
as  is  given  the  Scriptures,  and  the  direct  use  of,  and 
appeal  to,  the  Scriptures  made  in  the  Sunday  Schools 
can  be  easily  defended  as  against  the  indirect  author- 
ity of  the  Catechism.  It  may  be  that  the  Sunday 
School  work  is  not  specific  enough  as  to  doctrines,  and 
for  that  reason  such  schools  were  by  many  considered 
a  dangerous  innovation;  but  time  has  proved  them  of 
incalculable  value  in  the  advancement  of  Christianity. 
The  claim  that  the  neglect  of  the  Catechism  under- 
mined the  doctrine  of  election  is  manifestly  absurd,  as 
the  Heidelberg  does  not  mention  election,  and  does  not 
even  hint  at  preterition.  The  doctrine  of  election  is 
merely  assumed,  as  two  expressions  in  answers  to  ques- 
tions 52  and  54,  show, — chosen  ones,  and  church 
chosen.  Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
is  found  in  the  scriptures,  and  this  truth,  like  all  other 
Bible  truths,  is  not  dependent  upon  the  Heidelberg 
or  any  other  catechism.  Many  think  that  the  Sunday 
Schools  are  a  great  deal  better  vehicle  for  instruction 
in  Bible  truths  than  was  the  old  catechetical  method. 
However,  this  matter  does  not  show  any  laxity  in  the 
Eastern  Church,  but  is  simply  one  of  those  things 
which  illustrates  the  changing  phases  in  Church  life, 
which  the  changes  in  Church  rules  can  regulate.  It 
is  evident  that  today  the  Heidelberger  is  regaining  its 
place  as  a  text-book  in  religious  instruction  in  the  Re- 
formed Churches  in  America. 

Many  questions  loom  large  in  the  publications  of  the 
Reformed  Church.  Suffice  it  to  say,  however,  that 
these  publications  show  a  tremendous  endeavor  to 
maintain  the  Good  Old  Way,  even  amid  the  shifting 
scenes  of  the  New  York  and  New  Jersey  of  seventy 
years  ago. 


274  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XXI.     THE  REFORMED  CHURCH  A  ROCK 


OF  COURSE,  the  dark  spots  in  the  history  of  the 
Eastern  Reformed  Church  are  fully  in  evidence 
in  her  literature.  The  problem  of  her  Schools  at 
New  Brunswick,  for  example,  is  referred  to  in  the 
Synod  of  1848,  p.  299,  as  follows:  "We  are  one  of 
seven  similar  institutions  within  a  district  of  one  hun- 
dred miles  in  length,  and  with  the  exception  of  Easton 
(fifty  miles  west)  not  more  than  ten  miles  broad.  Our 
position  is  wellnigh  central."  This  tells  the  story  of 
competition  with  Williams,  Amherst  and  Union  and 
other  colleges,  and  with  Princeton  only  sixteen  miles 
away.  Union  was  almost  a  Reformed  Dutch  institu- 
tion, and  though  it  furnished  New  Brunswick  Semi- 
nary almost  as  many  students  at  Rutgers  did,  it  was  a 
serious  competitor  of  the  latter  college. 

With  the  sterner  features  of  Calvinism  among  her 
doctrines,  with  Witsius,  Marck,  Voetius,  Calvin  and 
Augustine  in  her  libraries,  in  two,  and  sometimes  in 
three  languages,  her  schools  adhering  to  the  Standards 
of  Dort,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  weakening  of  religious 
ties  and  the  lapse  of  discipline  in  the  different  denom- 
inations, this  Reformed  Church  maintained  her  disci- 
pline almost  up  to  the  standards  of  1619.  And  it  is 
a  fact,  that  seventy  years  ago,  this  Church  amidst  the 
blustering  of  the  Age  of  Reason,  was  literally  bom- 
barded with  accusations  of  "narrowness,"  "bigotry" 
and  "conservatism,"  so  often  complained  of  by  James 
Romeyn,  and  Drs.  Ferris,  Berg  and  Brownlee.  Even 
the  Presbyterians  thought  they  discovered  something 
grim  and  gloomy  in  the  Reformed  Church,  while  they 
forgot  that  their  own  Westminster  standards  were 
a    refinement   even    on    the    stern    Canons    of    Dort. 


THE      REFORMED      CHURCH      A      ROCK  275 

Many  others  were  guilty  of  criticizing  a  church 
which,  ever  since  Livingston's  powerful  missionary 
sermon  of  1804,  on  the  "Everlasting  Gospel  to 
Them  that  Dwell  on  the  Earth,"  Rev.  16:6,  which 
stirred  the  church  and  all  New  England  with 
her,  had  faced  toward  missionary  labors,  and 
had  deliberately  refused  to  give  carte  blanche  to 
the  Labadistic  poison  of  Solomon  Fraeligh,  whose 
remedy  was  a  thousandfold  worse  than  Conrad  Ten 
Eyck's  disease;  a  church  which  had  gladly  assumed 
her  part  of  the  burden  of  bringing  into  the  fold  the 
"other  sheep"  which  Christ  had ;  a  church  from  whose 
Seminary  went  forth  a  missionary  fervor  that  sent  so 
many  heralds  of  the  cross  to  the  Orient,  in  answer  to 
the  cries  of  millions  perishing  of  hunger  for'^the  glad"  S 
tidings"  of  great  joy;  a  church  which  held  the  doctrine 
of  election  as  one  of  the  corollaries  of  the  absolute  sov-  ^~ 
ereignty  of  God,  and  vindicated  this  doctrine  in  her 
Synod  and  books,  but  did  not  magnify  it  out  of  all  pro- 
portions; a  church  that  believed  God  commanded  men 
to  believe,  that  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing 
by  the  Word  of  God — the  use  of  the  means  of  grace,  in 
the  first  instance,  while  God  will  draw,  convince,  and 
also  give  assurance  of  election,  in  due  time;  that  be- 
lieved that  the  good  tidings  must  be  presented  to  the 
world,  without  a  maze  of  speculation  on  the  question 
of  predestination,  which  is  after  all  the  form  in  which 
a  God,  to  whom  all  time  is  an  everlasting  and  eternal 
present,  views  in  His  infinitude,  the  question  of  salva- 
tion. The  Reformed  Church  always,  in  1850,  in  1820, 
and  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  knew  that,  when  Paul  spoke 
of  election,  he  was  talking  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
Almighty,  and  he  did  so  because  he  was  inspired,  and 
could  in  a  measure  speak  God's  thoughts;  knew  also 
that  Paul,  at  the  same  time,  said  the  doctrine  was  in- 
comprehensible to  the  finite  human  mind,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  command  to  believe  and  study  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  like,  must  be  attended  to,  humanly 
speaking,  before  the  thankfulness,  humility  and  desire 
for  holiness,  which  are  evidences  of  election,  will  ap- 


276         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

pear.  It  is  remarkable  that  when  we  speak  to  God  and 
try  to  think  God's  thoughts,  we  approach  His  veiw- 
point,  and  are  all  Calvinists — ^that  is,  we  realize  that 
God  is  all  in  all ;  but  that  when  we  come  to  apply  God's 
viewpoint  to  sinful  humanity,  we  begin  with  the  com- 
mand to  believe  and  search,  and  are  all  more  or  less 
Methodists.  And  it  is  just  this  combination  of  solid 
doctrine  with  earnest  missionary  activity  which  re- 
veals the  very  soul  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  the  life 
of  the  Reformed  Church. 

After  considering  the  works  of  the  professors  of 
the  Seminary  at  New  Brunswick,  McClelland's  "Inter- 
pretation of  Scripture,  Cannon's  Pastoral  Theology, 
and  Van  Vranken's  Socinianism  Subversive  of  Chris, 
tianity,  together  with  the  contemporary  literature  of 
the  church  of  that  day,  we  can  understand  something 
of  the  criticism  of  those  who  differed  from  her.  Prof. 
Schaff,  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  the  western 
neighbor  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  said  the  latter 
was  entirely  too  firm  and  rigid  in  her  theology.  While 
lecturing  in  Europe,  in  1854,  Prof,  Schaff  said  that 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  was  holding  fast  to  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the  articles  of  doctrine  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort ;  that  she  was  almost  more  strongly 
Calvinistic  than  the  Old  School  Presbyterians;  that 
she  was  probably  the  strictest  and  most  immovable  of 
all  the  Reformation  churches  in  America,  and  felt  at 
ease  on  the  cushion  of  established  orthodoxy,  with  the 
complacent  idea  that  the  Synod  of  Dort  had  solved  all 
problems,  and  left  nothing  for  succeeding  generations 
to  work  out.    See  Dosker's  Ger.  Kerk,  p.  16  and  p  168. 

Even  as  early  as  1848,  (See  Intelligencer  of  Feb. 
17),  Dr.  Schaff  speaks  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  breth- 
ren rather  more  strongly.  He  says,  "They  take  their 
rest  contentedly  on  the  Articles  of  Dort,  and  will  allow 
no  theological  movement  within  their  walls,  and,  least 
of  all,  any  that  comes  from  Germans.  They  are  rich, 
and  possess  to  the  full.     A  departure  from  self-con- 


THE      REFORMED      CHURCH      A      ROCK  277 

tented  orthodoxy,  which  has  long  furnished  one  of  the 
most  difficult  problems  of  theology,  and  which  has  no 
idea  at  all  of  progressive  development,  is  [with  them] , 
eQ  ipso,  heresy.  To  learn  anything  from  the  Germans 
— ^to  respect  their  peculiarities — of  this  they  do  not 
even  dream." 

Prof.  Schaff  was  at  the  time  involved  in  the  spread 
of  the  Mercerberg  theology,  so  strenuously  opposed  by 
the  Reformed  Church,  and  evidently  was  not  at  ease 
on  account  of  the  rigorous  orthodoxy  of  Reformed 
Dutch  brethren,  who  were  "probably  the  strictest  and 
most  immovable  of  the  Reformation  churches  in  Amer- 
ica." It  should  be  noted  that  Prof.  McClelland  of  New 
Brunswick  Seminary  scored  the  Germans  heavily  in 
his  Interpretation  of  Scriptures. 

But  Dr.  Robert  Baird,  of  glorious  memory  and 
good  works,  knew  this  most  '.immovable  body"  just  as 
well  as  did  the  great  Philip  Schaff.  Baird  said,  "The 
doctrines  of  the  Reformed  Church  are  in  all  respects 
purely  Calvinistic,  and,  from  the  first,  this  church  has 
been  favored  with  an  able,  learned  and  godly  min- 
istry."   See  Religion  in  America,  p.  508. 

Dr.  Robert  Baird,  a  graduate  of  Princeton  in  1822, 
was  till  1827  the  energetic  agent  of  the  New  Jersey 
Bible  Society,  which  in  an  incredibly  short  time  put  a 
Bible  in  every  home  in  New  Jersey,  and  was  connected 
with  the  New  Jersey  Missionary  Society,  1827-35;  in 
1835-9,  and  again  in  1839  and  later,  he  was  in  charge 
of  the  work  of  the  Foreign  Evangelization  Society  with 
headquarters  at  Paris.  Dr.  Baird  was  not  an  unfa- 
miliar figure  on  the  Streets  of  Rotterdam  and  Amster- 
dam, where  there  were  branches  of  the  Society.  By 
his  associations  with  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in 
the  East,  and  by  his  visits  in  Holland,  he  knew  condi- 
tions in  the  Reformed  Churches  in  America  and  Hol- 
land better  than  any  other  man,  and,  as  was  said,  by 
his  letters  direct  from  Europe,  he  stirred  up  the  fath- 
ers of  the  Eastern  Reformed  Church,  from  time  to 
time  about  the  deplorable  situation  in  old  Holland.  Dr. 


278  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Baird's  information  about  both  churches  was  based  on 
personal  observation  on  the  grounds. 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Ferris  and  Prof.  McClelland, 
who  came  to  the  Reformed  from  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  of  Dr.  Berg,  who  come  from  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church,  and  of  eminent  scholars  like 
Drs.  Schaff  and  Baird  of  the  German  and  Presbyterian 
Churches,  as  to  the  character  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  is  important ;  but  the  best  evidence  is  found  in 
the  attitude  of  Rev.  Van  Raalte,  for  years  professor  of 
theology  at  Arnhem,  and  of  Rev.  Van  der  Meulen,  both 
leaders  of  the  Holland  emigrants  of  1846-7.  Both  had 
borne  the  brunt  of  secession  in  Holland,  and  had  al- 
ready, in  1840,  cut  loose  from  the  fanaticism  and  ig- 
norant phariseeism  of  some  of  their  fellow  seceders, 
while  both  had,  from  the  day  of  their  arrival  in  Amer- 
ica, read  the  Intelligencer  and  studied  the  church  lit- 
erature furnished  them  while  at  New  York  and  Al- 
bany, and  later.  Rev.  Van  Raalte,  who  attended  most 
of  the  sessions  of  the  General  Synod  since  joining  the 
Reformed  Church  in  1850,  and  who  had  repeatedly 
visited  in  the  East,  and  had  seen  the  church  in  action, 
and  had  studied  her  in  her  literature,  said  among  other 
things,  in  the  Classis  of  Holland  (Michigan)  in  1856, 
that  he  had  heard  in  the  General  Synod  an  able  dis- 
cussion and  defense  of  Reformed  polity,  the  equal  of 
which  he  had  never  heard  in  his  life.  Rev.  Van  der 
Meulen,  after  eight  years  of  study  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  after  he,  in  1855,  with  his  elder.  Van  de 
Luyster,  had  attended  the  General  fSynod  at  New 
Brunswick,  surprised  his  people  on  the  Sunday  after 
his  return  home,  by  explaining  once  more  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church,  her  schools,  boards,  officers, 
etc.,  in  a  sermon  on  Psalm  48 :12,  13,  "Walk  about  Zion, 
and  go  round  about  her;  number  the  towers  thereof; 
mark  ye  well  her  bulwarks ;  consider  her  palaces ;  that 
ye  may  tell  it  to  the  generations  following." 

Van  Raalte  and  Van  der  Meulen  knew  what  Re- 
formed doctrine,  worship,  and  discipline  were,  but 
they  also  understood  the  rights  and  liberties  of  indi- 


THE      REFORMED      CHURCH      A      ROCK  279 

vidual  members,  and  were  firm  believers  in  Christian 
unity  on  the  only  possible  basis,  viz. :  of  unity  in  essen- 
tials, and  liberty  in  non-essentials.  They  joined  the 
Eastern  Church  in  1850,  not  as  one  organization  join- 
ing another,  but  as  giving  formal  expression  to  a  unity 
that  existed  in  1847,  even  in  1834,  but  which  only 
waited  for  a  formal  expression,  after  due  investiga- 
tion. 

One  of  the  strongest  testimonials  as  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  is  that  furnished  at 
Orange,  New  Jersey,  on  April  18,  1875.  After  trouble 
about  secular  trusteeship  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  other  questions  connected  with  predestination, 
a  meeting  was  held  in  Lyric  Hall,  and  a  church  was 
organized  on  the  Reformed  basis— ''The  doctrines  of 
grace  called  Calvinistic  pure  and  simple,  and  Church 
government  in  the  hands  of  Christ's  own  officers — the 
minister,  the  elders  and  the  deacons  of  the  church." 
About  120  members  of  the  Second  Presbyterian 
Church  joined  Rev.  Geo.  S.  Bishop  and  others,  in  form- 
ing what  was  afterwards  known  as  the  First  Re- 
formed Church  of  Orange,  N.  J.  Their  platform  was : 
"We  believe,  right  out  of  God's  Word,  in  Total  De- 
pravity,— in  the  Guilt,  Pollution,  and  absolute  Help- 
lessness of  our  nature.  2.  We  believe  that  God  hath 
mercy  upon  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  that  a 
man's  salvation  depends,  not  first  of  all  on  his  choice, 
but  back  of  that  on  the  antecedent  choice  of  God :  *Ye 
have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you.'  3.  We 
believe  that  Jesus  died  not  as  the  Redeemer  of  all  men, 
but  of  His  people,  and  that  His  people  will  be  proved 
to  be  the  souls  who  trust  in  Him.  4.  We  believe  in  a 
real  inward  divine  change  in  a  man,  called  regenera- 
tion, new  birth,  that  a  man  may  have  many  calls  under 
the  Gospel,  but  only  one  effectual  calling.  5.  We  believe 
that  men  thus  called,  thus  born  again,  have  in  them 
something  that  can  never  perish  and  can  never  die. — 
that  no  man  falls  from  grace,  but  from  lack  of  it.  6. 
The  church  is  not  a  democracy,  not  a  republic,  not  an 
organization  at  all  of  man's  manufacture,  but  a  Christ- 


280  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

ocracy,  a  kingdom  and  a  government  dictated  and  con- 
trolled by  Christ.  That  'God/  as  Paul  said,  'hath  in 
the  church  set  governments,'  consisting  of  ministers, 
elders,  and  deacons — not  secular  trustees  and  the  like." 
Dr.  Bishop  and  his  people  deliberately  chose  the 
Reformed  Church,  as  the  Church  which  "carries  the 
balance-rod  between  undue  extremes  in  the  Church," 
and  as  being  nearest  to  the  Scriptures  in  her  doctrines, 
service  and  government.  And,  upon  application,  they 
were  received  by  the  Classis  of  Newark  as  a  part  of 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  Dr.  Bishop  made  the 
pulpit  of  the  Orange  Reformed  Church  for  years  ring 
with  the  greatest  messages  of  predestination,  election, 
free  grace,  and  the  like ;  and  his  printed  sermons  were 
read  all  over  the  land,  and  were  the  means  of  once 
more  reviving  and  populariz;ing  considerably  those 
and  the  other  essentials  of  Calvinism  in  America.  Dr. 
Bishop  came  from  the  Congregationalists  and  Presby- 
terians, and  finally  found  his  home,  and  his  workshop, 
and  a  grand  welcome,  in  the  Reformed  Church  in 
America.     He  called  the  Reformed  Church  "A  Rock." 


A      BEACON      LIGHT      EN      THE      NIGHT      OF      ERROR       281 


XXII.    A  BEACON  LIGHT  IN  THE 
NIGHT  OF  ERROR 


THE  result  of  the  writer's  research  as  to  whether 
the  Eastern  Church  was  truly  a  New  Testament 
church,  part  of  the  evidence  of  which  has  been 
given  in  preceding  chapters,  proved  a  great  surprise 
to  him,  groping,  as  he  had  been  for  years  in  the  midst 
of  the  foggy  religious  and  historical  atmosphere,  which 
has  for  sixty  years  obscured  the  truth  of  history  and 
dampened  religious  activity  among  the  western  Hol- 
landers and  their  descendants.  The  evidence,  indeed, 
shows  that  the  Eastern  brethren  understood  Calvin- 
ism far  better  than  the  bulk  of  the  immigrants  of 
1847.  The  functions  and  limits  of  Church  Orders  or 
rules  were  also  better  understood  in  the  East,  while 
many  of  the  western  people  could  not  discern  between 
Forms  of  Concord  and  Church  Rules.  In  the  sense  of 
Dort  the  eastern  brethren  remembered  that  Paul 
speaks  of  "psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,"  and 
that  with  the  change  from  Dutch  to  English,  they 
might,  and  ought  to,  change  the  rules  so  as  to  allow 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  also,  when  the  interests  of 
the  church  demanded  it ;  they  also  bent  the  rules  when 
the  Sunday  schools  interfered  with  catechetical  instruc- 
tion, and  the  interest  of  the  church  seemed  to  require 
the  encouragement  of  such  schools ;  and  they  also  knew 
that  preaching  from  the  catechism  was  required  by  a 
man-made  rule  only,  which  might  well  give  place  to 
direct  instruction  through  the  Bible.  They  had  a  Gen- 
eral Synod,  in  which  the  local  churches  gathered  each 


282  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

year,  or  as  often  as  necessary,  to  legislate  on  such  mat- 
ters as  the  Synod  of  Dort  and  preceding  national 
synods  had  done. 

The  matters  of  discipline  and  catechism  will  be  dis- 
cussed later  in  connection  with  the  secession  of  1857. 
Only  let  it  be  said  that  the  record  thus  far  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  shows  her  sound  at  heart  and 
at  root — a  real  representative  and  continuation  of  the 
Reformed  Church  of  two  centuries  ago,  which  started 
on  her  independent  career  just  before  the  waves  of 
heresy  and  error  overwhelmed  the  old  mother  church, 
and  was  thus  preserved  by  God  to  be  a  safe  refuge  for 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers  of  1847.  These  "Pilgrim  Fathers 
of  the  West"  were  not  all  qualified  to  judge  the  Amer- 
ican church,  for  some  of  them  came  over  with  the  ex- 
treme egotism  of  a  professional  secession  spirit,  with 
views  so  beclouded  with  ignorance  of  the  government 
of  Christ's  church  on  earth,  that  they  continued  on 
American  soil,  and  without  just  cause,  the  work  of  se- 
cession, learnt  in  Holland,  and  also  without  proper  in- 
vestigation, took  their  cue  partly  from  the  warped  and 
ill-considered  assertions  of  Fraeligh  of  1822,  instead 
of  investigating  the  record  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  to  date. 

The  writer  holds  no  brief  for  the  Reformed  Church 
East  or  West,  but  his  unbiased  investigation  has 
shown,  that,  from  1771  onward,  there  were  watchmen 
on  the  walls  of  the  Dutch-Scotch-Huguenot  Reformed 
Zion,  who  spoke  against  seeking  denominational  hon- 
ors in  the  Borneo  Mission,  in  numbers  or  in  wealth, 
and  who  hammered  home,  as  in  1848,  the  truth  that 
they  "needed  a  new  baptism  from  above,  and  that 
they  should  so  present  the  doctrine  of  personal,  effec- 
tual grace,  that  our  churches  shall  not  deem  it  a  mere 
dogma,  but  regard  it  as  a  living  principle,  which 
brings  them  under  its  mastery,  so  that  they  lay  their 
hearts  and  all  their  treasure  at  the  feet  of  Jesus." 
Many  are  the  notes  of  disappointment,  and  the  voices 


A      BEACON      LIGHT      IN      THE      NIGHT      OF      ERROR      283 

of  sorrow  for  the  declension  of  personal  piety ;  but  the 
language  of  the  contrite  heart  and  spoken  spirit  is 
blended  all  through  the  Reformed  literature  of  that 
time — a  sign  of  real  spiritual  life.  Withal,  these  Re- 
formed Churches  magnified  the  sovereignty  and  the 
grace  of  God,  and  lifted  high  the  banner  of  Christ,  the 
Redeemer,  with  a  charity  for  Baptists,  Methodists  and 
Congregationalists,  so  thoroughly  scriptural  and  Cal- 
vinistic,  that  it  is  to  them,  and  ever  will  be,  a  badge  of 
honor. 

Although  only  a  little  of  the  evidence  has  been  pre- 
sented, the  writer  found  that  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  was  historically,  and  by  virtue  of  her  doctrine 
and  life,  the  successor  and  continuation  of  the  Church 
of  Dort  not  only,  but  was,  in  fact,  the  church  of  the 
Netherlands,  seemingly  providentially  saved  from 
ruin.  And  therefore  Van  Raalte,  Van  der  Meulen,  and 
Ypma  were  so  glad  that  they  could  live,  even  in  Amer- 
ica, in  the  identical  venerable  Church  of  the  Martyrs, 
which  still  felt  herself  absolutely  dependent  on  God, 
as  she  sings  in  one  of  her  hymns — 

Stand  up, — stand  up  for  Jesus, 
Stand  in  his  strength  alone ; 

The  arm  of  flesh  will  fail  you. 
Ye  dare  not  trust  your  own ; 

Put  on  the  gospel  armor. 

And,  watching  unto  prayer, 

Where  duty  calls  or  danger. 
Be  never  wanting  there. 

The  reformed  Church  was  not  wanting  where  duty 
and  danger  called,  as  the  roll  of  her  missionary  mar- 
tyrs shows.  In  1819,  she  sent  Dr.  John  Scudder  to 
India,  and  adopted  Heber's  hymn  as  her  missionary 
battlecry : 


284  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

What  though  the  spicy  breezes 

Blow  soft  over  Ceylon's  isle; 
Though  every  prospect  pleases, 

And  only  man  is  vile; 
Salvation,  0  Salvation! 

The  joyful  song  prolong, 
Till  earth's  remotest  nation, 

Has  learned  Messiah's  name. 


When  the  writer  overcame  on  his  part  the  general 
ignorance  among  the  western  Hollanders  as  to 
the  history  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  when  he  had 
studied  her  from  her  own  records,  he  found  that  this 
church  had  put  up  a  hard  fight  against  the  forces  of 
liberalism,  and  that,  while  the  enemies  got  around  her, 
and  over  her,  they  never  got  a  real  foothold  in  her; 
he  found  her  conservatism  and  rigidity  criticized,  but 
her  activities  praised  by  all  except  Papists  and  Se- 
ceders;  he  found  her  what  Calvin  called  "a  tolerable 
church,"  from  which  no  one  could  secede  without  break- 
ing the  conjugal  bonds  Christ  established,  the  break- 
ing of  which,  Calvin  calls  rebellion.  The  writer  also 
found  that  what  appeared  at  first  view  like  occasional 
bouquets  thrown  at  its  Reformed  Dutch  Zion  by  the 
General  Synod,  were  in  fact  literal  truths,  when  seen 
in  the  light  of  her  struggle  for  the  doctrines  of  1618-9, 
her  almost  unparalleled  sacrifices  for  the  lost  sinners 
of  her  own  land  and  of  the  heathen  world,  and  of  the 
cruel  stripes  and  wounds  inflicted  by  her  rationalistic 
and  heretical  enemies, — as  when  the  General  Synod 
said  in  1854,  "It  is  no  unwarranted  egotism,  there- 
fore in  us,  to  say  that  we  honor,  respect  and  love  that 
church,  which  for  centuries  has  stood  forth  amid  the 
night  of  error  and  delusion,  as  a  beacon  light  to  point 
the  inquiring  to  the  way  of  life,  and  which  like  Gi- 
braltar itself,  in  the  midst  of  dissessions  and  defec- 


A      BEACON      LIGHT      IN      THE      NIGHT      OF      ERROR      285 

tions  which  have  painfully  tried  other  churches,  has 
always  remained  true  to  her  Calvinistic  history,  and 
unshaken  in  her  support  of  the  distinctive  features  of 
the  Protestant  Reformation;" — and  as  in  1849,  "A 
goodly  heritage,  a  church  of  the  Reformation,  as  near, 
we  verily  believe,  as  any  other  church  of  that  glorious 
era,  to  the  infallible  oracles  of  God,  transmitted  to  us 
through  the  piety,  the  faithfulness,  the  very  martyr- 
dom of  our  fathers.  Peace  be  within  her  walls,  and 
prosperity  within  her  palaces'." 


286         LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XXIII.    A  PHOTOGRAPH  OF  THE 
CHURCH  IN  1850 


THE  greatest  menaces  to  the  Reformed  Church  in 
the  '20's  and  later  were,  according  to  the  records 
of  those  times,  the  growth  of  Romanism  and  the 
settling  of  all  kinds  of  foreigners  in  and  around  New 
York.  In  this  fight  "the  politicians  catered  to  the  Cath- 
olic vote,  while  the  public  was  asleep."  The  same 
battle  was  on  in  Massachusetts,  and  the  Romanists 
finally  succeeded  in  banishing  the  Bible  out  of  the 
public  schools,  and  then,  it  is  is  said,  raised  a  hue  and 
cry  against  the  "godless  public  schools."  Drs.  Brown- 
lee,  Berg  and  Gordon  wrote  books  against  Romanism, 
which  went  through  several  editions.  This  was  about 
the  time  of  the  famous  "Kirwan  Letters,"  replied  to 
by  Archbishop  Hughes.  The  fight  in  New  York  City 
was  reported  as  severe,  and  Brownlee's  life  was  even 
in  danger.  He  gave  battle,  believing  that  religion, 
liberty,  and  safety  of  the  Republic  were  involved.  Dr. 
Berg  left  the  German  Reformed  Church,  on  account 
of  the  Romanizing  Mercerberg  theology,  and  continued 
the  battle  when  he  joined  the  Dutch  Church.  The 
whole  demonination  was  stirred,  and  if  ever  a  church 
of  the  Reformation  was  true  to  her  principles,  it  was 
the  Reformed  Church,  under  the  lead  of  Brownlee, 
Berg,  Gordon,  and  a  host  of  others.  And  when  she 
saw  religious  or  Bible  instruction  banished  from  the 
common  schools,  she  took  up  at  once  the  matter  of 
parochial  schools.  Mr.  Schiffelen  of  New  York  gave 
$7,000  for  such  schools,  and  the  Synod  minutes  and  the 
Intelligencer,  1850-70,  contain  many  references  to  the 
subject.  A  fund  was  established,  and  such  schools, 
even  at  Kalamazoo  and  Holland  City,  for  several  years, 


A     PHOTOGRAPH     OF     THE     CHURCH     IN     1850  287 

received  assistance  from  this  source.  The  question, 
narrowed  to  the  issue  between  the  public  school  and 
Catholicism,  was  finally  dropped,  although  the  General 
Synod  said,  as  late  as  1864,  that  "parochial  schools 
have  shown  their  value  to  the  churches."  Even  in  this 
particular,  as  against  the  aggressions  of  the  Roman 
church,  the  blood  of  the  Beggars  of  the  Sea  ran  "true 
to  form." 

So  far,  nothing  has  developed  to  show  that  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  was  a  false  church,  a  Babel  of 
Confusion,  with  which  the  Lord  had  a  controversy,  as 
the  Seceders  of  1822  claimed.  But,  as  the  year  1850 
has  been  taken  as  a  convenient  resting  place,  it  may 
be  interesting  to  refer  to  a  photograph  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  at  that  time,  taken  by  a  distin- 
guished foreigner,  Prof.  Buddingh  of  Utrecht,  during 
the  summer  of  1850,  while  visiting  New  York  and 
New  Jersey.  After  his  return,  Prof.  Buddingh  pub- 
lished three  books  in  the  Dutch  language,  and  one  of 
them  was  on  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  America. 
On  p.  XI  of  his  introduction,  he  says,  "It  was  a  pleas- 
ure to  find  the  old  Dutch  ancestral  customs  maintained 
here.  The  first  lesson  of  the  day,  in  the  family,  and 
in  the  higher  and  lower  schools,  both  for  -boys  and 
girls,  was  always  from  the  Scriptures.  No  school  opens 
without  prayer  and  Bible-reading.  The  right  of  the 
free  and  unhindered  use  of  the  Bible,  secured  by  the 
Reformation  and  the  Eighty  Years  War,  was  trans- 
planted with  the  Reformed  Church  to  New  Nether- 
lands, and  the  custom  of  Bible-reading  may  be  said  to 
flourish  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson.  The  conviction 
of  the  necessity  of  religious  instruction  in  the  schools 
is,  also  in  America,  so  deeply  rooted,  that  we  find  in 
gilt  letters  on  the  school  walls,  next  to  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, expressions  in  favor  of  it."  Buddingh 
also  speaks  of  Harvard,  as,  like  Groningen,  the  "can- 
cer of  true  Christianity."  On  p.  131,  he  says,  "The 
Bible  is  the  law-book  of  life  here,  and  wherever  I  was 
a  guest,  a  selection  from  it,  with  prayer  and  thanksgiv- 
ing, was  the  first  and  last  lesson  of  the  day."    He  also 


288  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

remarks,  "The  Reformation  was  the  result  of  Bible- 
reading;  the  church  is  the  daughter  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  the  school  is  a  sister."  On  p.  IV  of  the  intro- 
duction he  says,  "This  Church  maintains  the  Stand- 
ards of  Dort  purely,  and  is  a  blessing  to  the  Com- 
munity." He  says,  on  p.  132,  that  he  did  not  hear  a 
sermon  on  the  catechism,  during  his  visit,  but  that 
"discipline  and  morals  are  strictly  enforced  and 
watched.  Is  this  so  in  Holland?"  Buddingh  touches 
the  question  of  hymns,  and  says  that  when  a  hymn- 
book  was  ordered  by  the  General  Synod  in  1848,  it  was 
decided  also  to  reprint  the  psalm-book  to  satisfy  those 
who  desired  to  retain  the  use  of  the  psalms  in  their 
church  services.  On  p.  126,  he  says  that  church  music 
is  much  neglected  in  Holland,  and,  as  an  exception, 
refers  to  the  sweet  music  of  the  Herrnhuters  at  Zeist. 
About  the  music  in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  he 
says,  "A  fine  effect  is  produced  in  the  churches  at  Al- 
bany, New  York,  and  Brunswick,  by  the  aolus-harp,  or 
seraphine,  with  which  the  organ  is  provided."  He 
refers  to  the  rising,  swelling,  and  receding  tones  of 
choirs,  and  of  organs  far  superior  to  the  famous  organ 
at  Harlem,  and  concludes  as  follows.  "Whoever  has 
heard  the  lovely  swelling  and  receding  tones  of  the 
American  church  organ,  and  the  overwhelming  power 
of  the  choir  music,  will  admit  that  sacred  music  is  a 
real  part  of  the  worship,  too  much  neglected  in  Hol- 
land." 

Prof.  Buddingh's  work  on  the  Reformed  Church  in 
the  East  contains  about  300  pages,  and  presents  the 
church  in  all  her  activities,  schools,  missions,  doc- 
trines, discipline,  etc.  The  work  was  well  received  in 
the  East,  as  a  faithful  and  chaste  representation  by  a 
conservative  educator  and  scholar  of  the  orthodox 
part  of  the  old  Mother  Church,  and  may  not  inappro- 
priately be  called  a  photograph  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  seventy  years  ago.  Prof.  Buddingh  was 
especially  interested  in  school  and  home  life,  and  de- 
votes much  space  to  the  thorough  education  in  the 
Scripture  of  the  young  folks  among  the  Knickerbock- 


A     PHOTOGRAPH     OF     THE     CHURCH     IN     1850  289 

ers,  a  fact  which  makes  his  testimony  valuable  in  the 
study  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  particularly  so 
with  reference  to  the  above-mentioned  controversy  on 
school  matters. 

Prof.  Buddingh  devotes  a  whole  volume  to  educa- 
tional matters,  and  another  to  the  history  and  litera- 
ture of  America.  One  chapter,  he  says,  he  wrote  while 
sitting  in  the  study  of  Prof.  Van  Vranken  at  New 
Brunswick.  Buddingh  several  times  refers  to  the 
Hollanders  of  the  West,  and  mentions  the  Sheboygan 
Nieuwsbode,  then  the  only  Dutch  newspaper  in  Amer- 
ica. He  frequently  refers  to  the  literary  activities  of 
Paulding,  Hoffman,  Duyckinck,  Congressman  Ver- 
planck,  and  other  Knickerbockers.  Verplanck  espe- 
cially did  a  great  deal  to  remove  the  varnish  from  the 
boasted  civilization  of  New  England,  and  to  restore 
the  settlers  of  New  Netherlands  to  their  rightful  posi- 
tion in  history  as  against  the  witch-burners  and  self- 
constituted  general  superintendents  of  morality  and 
orthodoxy  who  inhabited  Massachusetts  two  centu- 
ries ago. 

To  repeat,  Prof.  Buddingh's  reference  to  the  wor- 
ship and  religious  education  in  the  families  and  schools 
of  the  eastern  Reformed  people,  are  exceedingly  im- 
portant in  their  bearing  on  the  relations  between  those 
people  and  the  Holland  settlers  in  the  West. 


290  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 


XXIV.   THE  REFORMED  CHURCH  AHEAD 
OF  THE  HOLLANDERS  OF  THE  WEST 


AN  AMUSING  feature  of  the  church  life  among 
the  Western  Hollanders  is  the  constant  strife 
since  1847,  and  particularly  so  in  the  seceded 
part  since  1857,  about  questions  that  had  been  agitated 
and  settled  long  ago  in  the  Eastern  Church.  The  im- 
migrants could  not  understand  that  the  situation  of 
the  Eastern  Reformed  Church  had  for  a  hundred 
years  been  a  trying  one,  owing  to  the  geographical 
situation  of  that  Church  in  the  heart  of  the  America 
of  those  days,  and  that  numerous  questions  pressed 
for  solution  at  almost  every  session  of  the  Synods. 
The  relation  of  that  Eastern  Church  with  all  sorts  of 
people  from  western  Europe  even  brought  up  repeat- 
edly the  matter  of  baptism  by  Catholic  priests,  while 
the  encroachment  by  churches  of  other  Protestant  de- 
nominations, with  different  usages  and  customs,  often 
caused  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  to  modify  her  posi- 
tion, as  e.  g.,  on  the  use  of  hymns  and  the  introduction 
of  Sunday  Schools.  That  the  Eastern  Church  had  a 
history  shaped  by  the  necessities  of  Zion,  and  that  such 
necessities  could  have  existed  years  ago  in  the  older 
parts  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  New  York  and  New 
Jersey,  was  beyond  the  comprehension  of  some  of  the 
Michigan  Hollanders.  The  use  of  hymns,  and  the 
Sunday  School  displacing  catechetical  instruction, 
were  to  those  Hollanders  evidence  of  deliberate  weak- 
ness and  indifference,  instead  of  being,  as  they  act- 
ually were,  the  results  of  the  efforts  of  the  Eastern 
brethren  to  conserve  the  best  interests  of  their  churches 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      291 

by  conforming  to  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  times 
as  manifested  around  them.  This  necessity,  which 
was  upon  the  Eastern  Church,  has  long  since  over- 
taken the  Western  Churches,  and  people  in  the  Seced- 
ed Church,  who  are  beginning  to  get  a  history  of  their 
own,  are  also  beginning  to  act  just  like  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  in  the  East  did  eighty  or  more  years 
ago. 

The  matters  of  hymns,  instrumental  music  in 
churches,  and  the  like,  were  stubbornly  fought  out  in 
the  East,  with  the  result  that,  in  self-defense,  the  Re- 
formed Church  conformed  with  the  usages  of  the  oth- 
ers in  matters  indifferent,  just  as  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
and  preceding  synods,  had  intended  they  should  do, 
when  the  interest  of  the  churches  demanded  it. 

The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  has  been  accused  of 
throwing  down  the  bars  on  many  questions,  for  in- 
stance, leaving  the  conditions  of  baptism  to  the  judg- 
ment of  local  pastors  or  consistories.  But  a  reference 
to  the  records  of  that  Church  shows  that  she  was  will- 
ing to,  and  always  did,  return  from  human  regulations 
and  restrictions  to  the  rule  of  the  Scriptures.  Innu- 
merable disputes  arose  about  baptism,  and  some  peo- 
ple objected  to  man-made  conditions,  to  "tests  not 
commanded  in  the  Word  of  God";  hence  in  1816,  the 
following  pronouncement  by  General  Synod:  "The 
right  or  privilege  of  infant  baptism  doth  not  rest  upon 
what  is  called  full  communion,  nor  is  the  partaking  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  by  one  or  both  of  the  parents,  an 
indispensable  test  for  admitting  infants  to  be  baptized 
in  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  In  avoiding  an  ex- 
treme which  straightens  admission  into  the  Church  of 
Christ,  by  making  a  test  not  commanded  in  the  Word 
of  God,  it  is  necessary  to  watch  against  the  opposite 
evil,  which  makes  no  distinction  between  the  pure  and 
the  vile,  and  which,  by  an  indiscriminate  administra- 
tion to  all  who  apply,  relaxes  Christian  discipline  and 
prostitutes  and  sacred  ordinance  of  baptism.  The 
General  Synod,  therefore,  commends  and  enjoins  that 
when  both  the  parents  openly  profess  such  errors  or 


292  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

heresies,  or  are  chargeable  with  such  immoralities  and 
improper  conduct  as  ought,  if  they  were  in  full  com- 
munion, to  exclude  them  from  the  table  of  the  Lord, 
they  shall  not,  during  such  apostasy  in  doctrines  and 
manners,  be  permitted  to  present  their  infants  to 
baptism;  but  shall  be  denied  that  privilege  until  they 
profess  repentance  and  show  amendment.  When  one 
of  the  parents  shall  be  thus  guilty,  and  the  other  is  a 
decent  and  peaceable  professor  of  the  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  infant  shall  be  baptized  at  the  request  and 
upon  the  right  of  the  professing  parent,  who  alone 
shall  stand  and  present  the  child.  And  lastly,  where 
the  minister  and  one  or  more  of  the  elders  find  great 
ignorance  in  the  parents,  and  such  a  want  of  knowl- 
edge in  the  first  principles  of  our  holy  religion  as  to 
render  them  unfit  to  make  a  public  profession  of  their 
faith,  it  shall  be  their  duty  to  withhold  them  for  a 
time,  notwithstanding  their  decent  moral  conduct  and 
profession,  and  frequently  and  affectionately  instruct 
them  previously  to  their  admission  to  the  ordinance, 
that  thus,  if  possible,  the  confession  and  vows  at  the 
baptism  of  their  infants  may  be  made  with  knowledge, 
sincerity,  and  truth."  Such  action  by  the  Synod  cer- 
tainly shows  a  disposition  to  return  to  the  rule  of  the 
Scriptures.  And  such  a  return  is  usually  erecting  bar- 
riers against  heresies,  which  it  is  very  unsafe  to  stig- 
matize as  letting  down  the  bars  for  heresies. 

In  1812,  the  Synod  approved  of  speaking  at  fune- 
rals a  word  in  season,  either  at  the  grave,  or  in  the 
house,  or  the  church,  and  to  close  the  solemnity  with 
a  prayer  and  benediction.  It  took  the  Seceders  of  the 
West  fifty  years  before  they  changed  their  opposition, 
and  followed  suit  in  the  matter  of  funeral  services. 

In  1824,  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  after  the  ex- 
perience of  the  Secession  of  1822,  and  the  arbitrary 
action  of  certain  members  in  withdrawing  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rules,  asserted  that  "It  is  an  established 
principle  of  church  government,  that  the  relation  sub- 
sisting between  a  church  and  its  members  can  be  dis- 
solved only  by  death  or  dismission,  or  an  act  of  dis- 


THE    REF,    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      293 

cipline.  Withdrawing  is,  therefore,  out  of  the  ques- 
tion." The  Seceders  of  1822  called  this  popery,  which 
took  away  the  liberties  of  Christians.  But  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  General  Synod  ever  spoke  Cal- 
vinistic  truth  stronger  than  in(  their  action  above 
given.  There  is  no  liberty  given  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  disturb  the  harmony  in  a  Christian  Church, 
by  staying  in  it  and  fighting  for  non-essentials,  or  to 
secede  from  such  Church  and  to  try  to  steal  its  prop- 
erty, usurp  its  place,  and  claim  to  be  the  identical 
church  seceded  from.  Of  course,  if  an  alleged  church 
is  corrupt  in  fundamentals,  it  ceases  to  be  a  church, 
and  withdrawal  from  such  organization  is  a  duty.  But 
to  apply  such  accusation,  at  that  time  or  any  time 
since,  to  the  Reformed  Church  is  nonsense;  and  if  a 
Church  is  not  corrupt,  or  a  false  Church,  the  relation 
between  her  and  her  members  is  dissolved  only  by 
death,  dismission,  or  act  of  discipline.  If  a  church  is 
a  true  church,  then  any  other  way  of  severing  the 
members  is  rebellion  of  the  worst  kind.  The  obliga- 
tions assumed  by  ministers,  officers,  and  members  are 
laid  down  in  the  Church  Constitution,  and  in  each  case 
that  Constitution  provides,  how  either  or  all  of  these 
may  be  dismissed  in  an  orderly  manner,  without  undue 
disturbance  of  the  order  of  the  church. 

Dr.  Wm.  J.  R.  Taylor,  in  a  sermon  before  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  in  1883,  on  "Christian  Liberty,"  said,  "No 
Church  can  exist  as  a  Church  without  a  proper  sys- 
tem of  government  and  laws  and  belief.  Yet  these 
should  be  held  in  perfect  subjection  to  the  higher  law 
of  "the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God."  What 
then  ?  If  a  church  or  denomination  is  wrong,  its  mem- 
bers have  the  liberty  of  trying  to  right  it.  If  they 
cannot  change  it,  they  have  the  liberty  of  leaving  it, 
and  even  of  establishing  a  new  denomination,  as  the 
Reformed  Episcopalians  have  done.  But  no  man  has 
a  right  to  stay  in  a  church  or  communion  to  fight  his 
own  battles,  and  to  make  a  schism  and  rend  the  body 
of  Christ  by  his  obstinacy  and  rebellion."  Dr.  Taylor 
also  said  that  a  minister  might  leave,  but,  "as  a  man 


294  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

under  vows,  he  has  no  right  to  violate  these  within  the 
body  of  which  he  is  a  member,  for  the  sake  of  pro- 
claiming another  gospel."  Dr.  Taylor,  relative  to  the 
claim  that  the  Church  binds  men  by  "obligations  which 
abridge  his  liberty  of  thought  and  speech,"  says,  "such 
independence  puts  the  individual  above  the  Church, 
takes  away  her  powers  of  self-defense,  contradicts  the 
fundamental  principles  by  which  a  church  protects 
herself,  and  nullifies  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  His 
apostles  relative  to  doctrinal  purity,  the  peace  and 
unity  of  the  fold  of  the  Good  Shepherd.  It  gives  more 
liberty  to  the  wolf  than  to  the  shepherd,  and  takes 
away  all  protection  from  the  sheep  and  the  lambs. 
Self-preservation  is  the  law  of  liberty  in  the  Church 
as  well  as  in  nature  and  in  nations ;  for  liberty  cannot 
exist  with  lawlessness." 

The  rule  that  membership  in  a  Reformed  Church 
can  be  severed  only  by  death,  discipline,  or  dissension, 
is  absolutely  correct.  Everybody  is  free  to  join,  and 
everybody  is  free  to  go,  upon  compliance  with  the 
Rules,  in  any  Reformed  Church,  but  a  member  may 
not  create  a  schism  or  disrupt  a  church ;  and  secession 
so-called  is  available  as  a  remedy  only  when  a  Church 
has  ceased  to  be  a  part  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

Another  line  of  criticism  is  followed  by  those  who 
object  to  the  refusal  of  the  General  Synod  in  1824  to 
legislate  on  abstract  questions.  The  writer  has  heard 
Hollanders  in  the  West  discuss  this  question,  who  evi- 
dently did  not  know  what  the  phrase  "abstract  ques- 
tion" meant,  unless  it  meant  Free  Masonry.  What 
the  General  Synod  really  meant  was  this:  that  while 
they  could  lay  down  general  lines  of  action  as  to  dis- 
cipline, as  they  often  did  relative  to  dancing  in  pro- 
miscuous gatherings,  intemperance,  the  running  of 
stagecoaches,  steamboats,  and  canal  boats  on  Sunday, 
and  the  like,  they  always  left  it  to  the  pastors  and  con- 
sistories, in  the  first  instance  to  determine  what  con- 
sistuted  these  forms  of  Sabbath  desecration,  etc.,  and 
who  were  guilty  of  same.  The  General  Synod  prop- 
erly left  the  discipline  to  the  local  churches  in  all  its 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      295 

circumstances  and  facts,  unless  the  matter  came  up  by- 
way of  appeal  to  a  higher  body;  that  is,  the  General 
Synod  did  not  lord  it  over  the  local  churches,  but  left 
it  to  the  local  church  to  maintain  and  enforce  disci- 
pline on  the  ground  where  the  offense  might  be  com- 
mitted. 

The  Seceders  of  the  West  have  attacked  this  re- 
fusal to  pass  on  abstract  questions,  when  there  was  no 
concrete  case  of  actual  offense  before  the  Synod 
brought  up  on  appeal.  But  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  Secession  Synod  in  the  Netherlands  (now 
claimed  to  be  the  Mother  Church  of  the  Western 
Seceders),  took  the  same  stand,  in  regard  to  workers 
in  a  gas-factory  and  Zuider  Zee  fishermen,  etc.,  and 
insisted  on  treating  matters  not  as  abstract  questions, 
but  only  as  concrete  cases  coming  up  by  way  of  appeal. 
In  1880  this  question  became  prominent  in  the  Free 
Masonry  question  in  the  West,  where  some  wanted 
the  General  Synod  to  condemn  Free-Masonry  and  other 
oath-bound  secret  societies  off-hand,  abstractly;  but 
the  General  Synod,  while  saying  that  the  course  of 
safety  did  not  lie  in  secret  societies  which  undermined 
the  truths  of  Christianity,  refused  to  introduce  new 
tests  of  membership  not  found  in  the  Scriptures  into 
the  Reformed  Church,  but  left  the  matter  to  the  local 
churches  for  consideration  and  action,  according  to 
the  strict  New  Testament  procedure, — a  course  of 
action  thoroughly  Calvinistic,  the  very  base  of  the 
Reformation,  and  Reformed  to  the  core. 

In  1814,  the  General  Synod  declared  on  essential 
and  non-essential  customs  and  usages,  and  held  sing- 
ing of  psalms  and  hymns  approved  of  and  recommend- 
ed by  the  General  Synod,  preaching  from  the  Heidel- 
berg Catechism,  and  observance  of  the  forms  for  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper  as  contained  in  the 
Liturgy,  as  essential ;  while  the  arrangement  of  the  ser- 
vice, number  of  psalms  sung,  preaching  on  Ascension 
Day,  Good  Friday  and  other  holydays  were  counted 
as  non-essential.  "Your  committee  observe  that  those 
customs  and  usages  which  are  deemed  essential  and 


296  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

constitutional,  are  preserved  pure  and  entire  by  the 
different  Classes;  and  we  observe  likewise,  that  those 
which  are  considered  non-essential  are  dispensed  with 
or  retained  or  altered,  according  to  the  taste  or  cir- 
cumstances of  the  different  ministers  and  congrega- 
tions." 

The  doctrine  of  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  local 
church  were  always  recognized  to  the  fullest  extent 
by  the  Eastern  Church,  and  Rule  30  of  Dort  was  en- 
forced, "A  greater  Assembly  shall  take  cognizance  of 
those  matters  alone  which  could  not  be  determined  in 
a  lesser,  or  that  appertain  to  the  churches  or  congre- 
gations in  general,  which  compose  such  an  assembly." 

The  doctrine  "once  an  elder  always  an  elder,"  was 
tacitly  admitted,  and  Dr.  Ferris,  in  his  "Character- 
istics," on  p.  23,  says  about  a  retiring  elder,  "Our  plan 
intermits  his  immediate  responsibility  and  active 
duties,  while  he  is  reserved  for  a  larger  council  called 
the  Great  Consistory,  who  are  convened  for  special 
and  great  questions ;  he  is  also  chosen,  at  the  pleasure 
of  the  proper  court,  to  the  Synods." 

It  is  the  claim  of  the  Western  Seceders  that  the 
doctrine  of  Christian  liberties,  as  understood  and  ap- 
plied in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  in  the  Classis  of  Hol- 
land, seventy  years  ago,  was  not  true  Calvinism,  and 
that  laxity  in  ecclesiastical  rule  is  invariably  the  fore- 
runner of  laxity  in  doctrines  and  morals.  But  the  ex- 
perience of  eighteen  centuries  has  shown  that  the  fail- 
ure to  observe  those  liberties  made  the  Romish  Church 
a  vast  ecclesiastical  despotism  under  which  religious 
liberty  was  lost.  Christ  and  the  apostles  nowhere  in- 
sisted on  a  code  of  iron-clad  rules  in  the  church  to 
bind  the  consciences  of  believers.  Calvin's  Institutes 
is  severe  in  its  condemnation  of  such  rules,  and  justly 
so,  for  the  Reformation  was  nothing  but  an  attempt 
to  get  away  from  the  domination  of  church-made 
rules.  What  those  Western  Seceders  in  1857  did  was 
to  restore  the  reign  of  oppressive  rules  in  the  church. 
The  Reformed  Church,  the  fathers  at  Wesel  said,  has 


THE    REF,    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS       297 

maintained  against  the  Romish  Church  (which  makes 
people  believe  that  salvation  is  dependent  upon  obedi- 
ence to  Church  Rules),  that  there  is  no  salvation,  no 
piety,  no  holiness  to  be  found,  nor  must  be  sought,  in 
such  rules,  while  the  Western  Seceders  in  1857  said 
the  Romish  Church  is  right,  salvation,  piety  and  holi- 
ness are  found,  and  must  be  sought,  in  rules  of  church 
government,  and  unless  the  Reformed  Church  holds 
and  believes  with  us,  we  will  secede. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Van  Raalte,  Van  der  Meulen, 
Van  de  Luyster  and  Van  Hees  saw  from  the  start  that 
the  Eastern  Reformed  Church  was  far  ahead  of  the 
Western  Hollanders  in  knowledge  of  the  Calvinistic 
system,  and  in  the  decency  and  good  order  of  her 
church  life.  They  knew,  as  did  many  of  the  immi- 
grants of  1846-7,  who  tarried  with  the  Eastern  people 
for  months,  that  the  Eastern  Church  followed  the  old 
Standards  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe; 
moreover,  it  became  clearer  by  further  association  in 
the  General  Synods,  that  this  Eastern  Church  had 
varied  neither  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left  from  the 
Reformed  spirit  as  it  existed  since  1568,  and  that  this 
Eastern  Church  had  not  removed  the  ancient  land- 
marks of  faith  and  polity  during  the  disturbances 
which  shook  the  old  Church  of  Holland,  together  the 
Dutch  people,  from  one  ecclesiastical  extreme  to  the 
other.  Van  Raalte  saw  at  once  that  the  novelty  and 
inexperience  of  the  Secession  of  1834-40  had  no  coun- 
terpart in  the  Eastern  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and 
that  no  reckless  and  superficial  phariseeism  ruled  in 
this  Church.  There  he  found  the  faith  of  the  Fathers, 
and  the  Church  of  the  Fatherland,  an  offshoot  of  Dort, 
which  had  retained,  of  course.  Art.  71  of  Dort,  which 
specified  that  "as  Christian  discipline  is  spiritual,  and 
exempts  no  person  from  the  judgment  and  punishment 
of  the  civil  power,  so  it  is  requisite  that  without  any 
reference  to  civil  punishment,  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual 
censure  should  be  exercised."  Van  Raalte  found  that 
the  General  Synod  had  long  ago  proclaimed  that  "the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  deprecates  any  union  between 


298  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Church  and  State  as  alike  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  vital  piety,  and  dangerous  to  that  liberty  of  con- 
science which  is  now  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  our 
happy  republic.  The  results  of  experience  in  this 
country  abundantly  prove  that  the  Church  needs  no 
other  support  than  the  piety  of  its  members  and  the 
grace  of  Christ."  Van  Raalte  also  found  that  Art.  36 
of  the  Confession,  requiring  governments  to  prevent 
and  extirpate  all  idolatry  and  false  worship,  etc.,  had 
been,  in  accordance  with  American  ideas,  sufficiently 
explained  in  the  preface  to  the  Constitution  of  1792, 
and  in  the  35th  Explanatory  Article,  and  that  in  Ex- 
planatory Article  69  of  1792,  all  distinction  between 
whites  and  blacks  in  church  communion  had  been  abol- 
ished. 

The  history  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  from 
1792  till  1850  is  full  of  efforts  to  return  from  human 
rules  to  the  rule  of  the  Scriptures;  but  it  is  evident 
that  the  Eastern  Church  was  not  nearly  as  strong 
against  such  human  rules  as  were  Van  Raalte  and  the 
colonists,  who,  as  we  know,  went  so  far  as  to  rule,  in 
1848,  that  ministers  could  not  be  bound  to  preach 
from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  because  it  was  com- 
manded only  by  mere  temporal  church  rules.  Van 
Raalte's  people  therefore  even  had  their  own  manner 
of  religious  instruction,  while  the  synods  of  the  East- 
ern Church  fought  for  the  Heidelberger  very  stren- 
uously. The  experience  Van  Raalte's  people  had  in 
Holland  had  made  them  view  stern  church  rules  with 
suspicion  and  fear.  The  Eastern  Church,  closely  asso- 
ciated through  the  sojourn  of  her  students  in  the 
schools  of  old  Holland,  until  1771,  was  cut  off  from  all 
connection  with  Holland  after  1790,  and  had  no  ex- 
perience of  the  domination  of  human  rules  under 
Napoleon  and  after  1816,  so  that  the  Eastern  Church 
was  relatively  purer  on  the  question  of  rules  than  were 
Van  Raalte  and  the  "Forty-niners,"  who  feared,  and 
than  were  the  Seceders  of  1857,  who  worshiped, 
Church  Rules. 

Western  Seceder  writers  think  they  score  a  point 


REV.  A.  C.  VAN  RAALTE.  D.D. 


300  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

against  the  Eastern  Church,  because  she  failed  to  ex- 
pand. But  most  of  her  children  who  moved  West, 
went  in  parties  too  small  to  maintain  a  church  of  their 
own.  The  result  of  following  them  into  the  West  was 
the  organization  of  the  Classis  of  Illinois  and  of  Michi- 
gan, about  1840,  composed  of  several  small  churches, 
as  at  Fairview,  111.,  and  Constantine,  Michigan.  Mis- 
sion stations  were  established,  among  other  places,  at 
Allegan  and  at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.  Grand  Rapids 
had  an  organized  American  Reformed  Church  as  early 
as  1840.  But,  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  the 
rather  conservative  Reformed  people  were  pressed  by 
the  more  radical  Presbyterians  and  other  denomina- 
tions, and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  if  that  Church  had 
assumed  the  exclusive  attitude  of  the  Seceders  of  1822 
or  of  those  of  1857,  she  would  have  foundered.  If  the 
Secession  Church  of  1857  had  been  in  the  East,  in- 
stead of  among  a  lot  of  Holland  immigrants,  con- 
stantly augmented  by  other  immigrants,  she  would  not 
have  lasted  very  long.  Even  today  the  Western  Seced- 
ers depend  upon  immigration  almost  exclusively  for 
their  growth,  and  their  expansion,  under  conditions 
similar  to  those  in  the  East,  and  among  Americans, 
has  been  looked  for  in  vain.  The  fight  made  by  the 
Eastern  Church  against  heavy  odds  was  not,  and  is 
not,  understood  in  the  West,  even  today.  That  Church 
is  today  fighting  the  same  battles,  in  a  still  greater 
Babylon  than  a  hundred  years  ago. 

It  was  the  claim  of  the  Seceders  of  1834  in  the 
Netherlands,  that  they  wanted  to  return  from  Ration- 
alism and  the  Rules  of  1816  to  the  "Fathers  of  Dort." 
As  a  whole,  after  many  years  of  intestinal  strife,  these 
Seceders  succeeded  fairly  well  in  attaining  their  ob- 
ject. The  Reformed  Dutch  Church  really  never  left 
the  atmosphere  of  the  fathers  of  Dort;  but  while  the 
Dutch  Seceders  were  struggling  to  return  to  Dort,  they 
broke  into  several  disorderly  factions,  and  were  in  the 
greatest  confusion  when  Van  Raalte  and  Scholte  and 
their  people  left  for  America.  In  the  Zwolle-Kampen 
neighborhood  many  of  those  Seceders  started  what 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      301 

was  called  the  Reformed  Church  Under  The  Cross,  the 
so-called  Kruisgezinden  or  Kruiskerken,  composed  of 
people  who  declared  the  other  Seceders  Remonstrants, 
and  who  claimed  they  were  the  real  Calvinists  re- 
turning to  Dort.  They  ordained  a  few  of  their  men 
as  ministers,  one  of  whom  was  D.  J.  Van  der  Werp, 
who  made  it  his  business  in  American,  1864-76,  to 
propagate  the  principles  of  the  Kruisgezinden.  There 
were  in  Holland  several  other  factions  with  strong 
independent  leanings;  and  when  the  migration  to 
America  began  in  1846-7,  the  war  of  the  faction  was 
at  its  height,  and  the  real  nature  of  the  Dutch  seces- 
sion had  not  been  able  to  assert  itself. 

When  Van  Raalte  and  Van  der  Meulen  and  the 
other  leaders  came  in  contact  with  the  Eastern  Re- 
formed Church,  they  found  that  she  had  been  prac- 
tically free  from  the  disturbances  which  had  desolated 
ecclesiastical  Holland,  and  had  suffered  little  from  in- 
dependency on  the  one  hand,  and  rigid  adherence  to 
man-made  Rules,  on  the  other.  They  found  that  in 
her  ranks  the  questions  of  Remonstrantism  had  been 
raised  so  little,  that  Dr.  Livingston,  Solomon  Fraeligh, 
and  the  other  fathers  of  the  Church  had  not  reprinted 
the  "Rejection  of  Errors"  with  the  Canons  of  Dort. 
They  found,  also,  that  the  Church  had  not  surrendered 
to  the  Labadists  of  1822,  but  had  slung  Labadism  from 
her  arms,  as  Dr.  Kuyper  would  say,  as  if  it  were  a 
poisonous  serpent.  They  found  in  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  Reformed  doc- 
trine and  practice  than  could  at  that  time  be  found  in 
Holland  except  in  books;  and,  no  wonder,  for  there 
never  was  a  time  in  that  Church,  when  her  leaders 
appealed  more  strongly  to  Calvin's  Institutes,  to  Voe- 
tius,  and  to  Witsius.  Van  Raalte  found,  from  the 
Digest  of  1848,  that,  for  fifty  years  or  more,  that  Re- 
formed Dutch  Zion  had  applied  the  principle  that  no 
piety,  holiness,  or  salvation  can  be  found,  nor  must  be 
sought,  in  Church  Rules,  and  had  thus  stood  squarely 
on  the  Magna  Charta  of  the  Synod  of  Wesel,  and  on 
Calvin's  Institutes.    For  such  reasons,  Van  Raalte  and 


302  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

the  fathers  of  1849  felt  themselves  one  with  the  East- 
ern Church, — on  principles  with  which  they  had  tried 
in  vain  to  unite  the  disorganized  secession  in  the  old 
country,  on  principles  rejected  by  these  Kruiskerken 
and  the  other  independent  factions  in  the  Netherlands, 
who  instead  of  returning  to  the  spirit  of  Dort,  returned 
to  the  letter  of  Dort,  against  the  evident  intent  of 
Dort. 

Later  on,  in  Michigan,  after  the  union  with  the 
Eastern  Church,  and  while  the  factions  in  old  Holland 
united  in  1854,  1869  and  1892,  the  old  stumbling  blocks 
of  Holland  were  set  up, — opposition  to  hymns,  to  funer- 
al services,  to  dead  bodies  in  church  during  a  funeral, 
to  flowers  on  a  casket,  to  church  organs,  to  fire  insur- 
ance, to  life  insurance,  to  lightning  rods,  to  flowers 
on  bonnets,  to  white  dresses,  to  Sunday  Schools,  to  the 
English  language,  to  the  suffocating  gas  of  Methodism, 
to  foreign  missions,  to  Christmas  trees,  to  vaccination, 
and  to  picnics.  And  in  addition,  the  "unconditional 
acceptance"  of  Church  Rules  over  200  years  old, — 
while  the  Martyr  Church  had  the  rashness  to  make 
six  or  seven  different  sets  of  rules  during  forty  years, 
— were  projected  as  the  marks  of  the  True  Church  as 
against  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  and  the  Classis 
of  Holland.  It  is  evident  that  the  Secession  Church 
of  the  Netherlands  is  not  the  Mother  of  the  Secession 
Churches  in  America.  That  distinction  may  be  claimed 
by  the  Kruiskerken  which  went  out  of  existence  in 
1869.  The  Seceders  in  Michigan,  in  1857,  claimed  they 
wanted  to  return  to  Dort,  but  they  got  no  farther  than 
the  Kruiskerken  of  1837,  and  stuck  there  for  years. 
Most  of  the  points  advanced  by  these  Seceders  of  1857, 
have  been  quite  well  yielded  by  them  since,  and  even 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  is  given  its  proper  place 
by  Rev.  Bosma,  a  writer  of  that  Church,  without  mag- 
nifying it  out  of  due  propostion.  And  it  is  astonish- 
ing, therefore,  that  this  secession  church  in  the  West, 
based,  as  it  really  is,  on  the  few  Kruiskerken  in  old 
Holland,  claims  it  is  the  representative  of  true  Dutch 
Calvinism,   because   Van   Raalte   and  the   others,   by 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      303 

joining  the  East  in  1850,  broke  away  from  Calvinism. 
"Alas,  alas,"  says  one  of  these  Secession  writers,  "they 
joined  an  American  Church,  so  long  separated  from 
the  influence  of  the  Mother  Country."  Another  Se- 
ceder  deplored  the  fact  that  now  only  "our  little 
church"  has  to  do  battle  for  true  Calvinism.  The  dis- 
tance between  Satan  and  a  Hollander  or  a  Scotchman, 
when  the  latter  has  turned  Pharisee,  is  not  so  appre- 
ciable as  it  ought  to  be.  It  was  the  good  fortune  of 
the  Calvinists  of  the  Eastern  Reformed  Dutch  Church, 
and  of  Princeton,  that  from  1790-1850,  they  were  not 
exposed  to  the  religious  influence  of  either  the  State 
Church  or  the  Dutch  Seceders,  or  to  that  of  western 
Europe,  and,  consequently,  were  able  the  better  to 
preserve  the  Calvinism  of  Dort.  The  Seceders  of 
1857,  in  Michigan,  whatever  they  thought,  were  not 
real  Calvinists,  as  Van  Raalte  and  his  adherents  were. 
Calvinism  was  really  submerged  and  lost  by  the  Seced- 
ers of  1857,  as  the  six  points  of  Graafschap's  secession, 
not  one  of  which  was  based  on  doctrinal  grounds,  clear- 
ly show. 

If  anything,  Van  Raalte  and  the  Classis  of  Hol- 
land were  a  little  ahead  even  of  the  Eastern  Church  in 
their  views  of  the  liberties  with  regard  to  Church 
Rules,  and  the  break  of  1857  was  therefore  the  break 
among  the  Western  Hollanders  themselves,  and  not  so 
much  with  the  East.  Furthermore,  the  stories  that 
Van  Raalte  deplored  the  union  with  the  East  and  the 
resulting  break  in  the  West,  are  secession  pipe-dreams. 
Van  Raalte  did  deplore  the  division  of  the  Western 
churches,  but  he  always  insisted  that  in  her  concep- 
tion of  Calvinistic  doctrines.  Reformed  polity,  and  the 
spirit  of  Christianity,  the  Eastern  Church  was  years 
ahead  of  the  Western  Hollanders.  Van  Raalte  was 
right.  The  Hollanders  were  too  biased  by  the  seces- 
sion in  Holland  to  see  clearly,  and  that  whole  Secession 
Church  of  the  West  has  only  recently  begun  to  show 
signs  of  a  return  to  Calvinistic  conceptions  of  the 
Christian  Church.  The  arrival  of  Rev.  D.  J.  Van  der 
Werp,  one  of  the  original  members  of  the  Kruiskerken, 


304  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

in  America  in  1864,  and  several  like  him,  made  the 
Secession  Church,  by  about  1870,  worse  than  in  1857 ; 
and  with  such  timber  in  the  colony  there  would  have 
been  a  split,  East  or  no  East,  sooner  or  later. 

Elder  Van  Driele  of  Grand  Rapids,  in  1882,  said 
substantially  that  the  Eastern  Reformed  Church  had 
done  the  West  nothing  but  good ;  she  helped  us  in  our 
necessities,  and  never  in  one  particular  oppressed  us 
with  a  yoke  of  non-essentials.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
failed  to  retire  elders  every  two  years,  we  sang  psalms 
and  no  hymns,  we  quarreled  about  extirpating  heresies, 
and  otherwise  behaved  in  a  disorderly  manner.  Nev- 
ertheless, the  Eastern  Church  did  not  compel  us  by  a 
snare  of  Rules,  but  showered  us  with  gifts  of  money, 
and,  above  all,  with  a  propaganda  for  foreign  mis- 
sions which  changed  the  character  of  the  Western  Re- 
formed Church  into  a  great  factor  in  foreign  missions. 

There  has  been  a  tendency  in  the  Western  Seces- 
sion Church  to  work  on  the  prejudices  of  the  Dutch 
as  against  the  "English"  Church  in  the  East.  Van 
Driele  mentions  the  fact  that  in  1882,  some  people  in 
the  Fourth  Church  of  Grand  Rapids  talked  about  get- 
ting rid  of  "those  English"  in  the  East.  This  prej- 
udice was  used  rather  skillfully  by  the  Western  Seced- 
ers  in  manipulating  the  later  immigration  from  the 
Netherlands,  as  will  appear  later.  But  in  spite  of  all 
that  happened  in  the  West,  during  the  last  sixty  years, 
the  distinctive  features  of  Calvinism  have  been  pre- 
served better  at  New  Brunswick  and  Princeton  than 
by  the  Seceders  in  the  West.  Even  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  Church  Confessions,  the  East  has  always 
clearly  understood,  as  Dr.  Taylor  expressed  it,  "that 
creeds  are  the  outgrowth  of  beliefs,  interpretations, 
and  experiences  of  those  who  have  made  them  accord- 
ing to  their  knowledge,  belief,  and  the  use  of  the 
materials  which  they  found  in  the  Word  of  God.  The 
principles  of  Protestantism,  the  practice  of  the  Re- 
formers and  the  earlier  creed  builders,  who  made  the 
Bible  their  Rule  of  Faith,  compel  us  to  recognize  the 
same  right  and  privilege  of  any  church  or  denomina- 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS       305 

tion,  or  alliance  of  churches,  to  frame  its  own  con- 
fessional symbols,  which  was  exercised  by  their  prede- 
cessors. Neither  the  Christian  Fathers,  nor  the  Re- 
formers, nor  the  men  of  Augsberg,  Heidelberg,  Dort 
and  Westminster  had  any  prescriptive  divine  right  for 
making  confessions  of  faith  for  all  Christendom  which 
does  not  belong  to  Christian  men  and  churches  of  later 
ages."  Dort  then,  neither  in  Creed  nor  in  Rules,  had 
necessarily  spoken  the  first  or  the  last  word. 

It  is  very  evident  that  Van  Raalte  saw  in  the  fact 
that  the  Eastern  people  were  ahead  of  the  Dutch  im- 
migrants in  their  ecclesiastical  experience  and  life  a 
half  a  century  or  more,  that  he  had  no  right  to  refuse 
obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ  to  be  one  with  that 
vigorous  off -shoot  of  Dort.  The  East  sang  hymns  and 
psalms  in  English,  recognized  other  Christian 
churches,  and  did  other  things  beyond  the  comprehen- 
sion of  the  denizens  of  country  crossroad  towns  in 
Holland  and  the  woods  of  Michigan;  but  she  stood  on 
the  platform  of  Bogerman  and  Dort,  and  had  zeal  for 
God  with  knowledge.  There  is  nothing  in  the  life 
and  history  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the 
East  in  the  last  century  that  can  give  an  excuse  for 
people  of  Reformed  faith  anywhere  for  refusing  the 
fullest  co-operation  with  her;  and  so  far  from  the 
union  of  the  Western  Hollanders  with  that  Church  in 
1850  being  a  mistake,  Van  Raalte  and  his  people 
would  have  exposed  themselves  to  everlasting  dis- 
grace if  they  had  not  joined.  According  to  Reformed 
doctrine  and  practice,  those  who  broke  that  union  in 
1857  were,  in  their  conception  of  the  whole  system  of 
Reformed  Church  government,  far  off  the  good  old 
way,  and  were  in  that  respect  nothing  short  of  heret- 
ics. It  is  not  Church  Rules,  it  is  not  the  preaching 
from  the  Catechism  every  Sunday  while  throwing  the 
principles  of  that  Catechism  to  the  dogs,  that  consti- 
tutes a  Calvinistic  Reformed  Church.  It  is  not  Re- 
formed doctrine  to  secede  from  all  Protestant  denomi- 
nations, as  was  done  in  Michigan  in  1857,  on  "six 
points,"  in  all  of  which  Reformed  doctrine  says  there 


306  LANDMARKS       OF      THE       REFORMED       FATHERS 

is  no  piety  nor  holiness  nor  salvation,  neither  may  they 
be  sought  therein.  It  was  this  un-Reformed  insistence 
by  the  Seceders  on  points  of  subordinate  importance 
like  feast-days,  church  music,  and  the  like,  that  moved 
Rev.  H.  P.  Scholte  of  Pella,  Iowa,  in  his  last  days,  to 
characterize  the  Secession  Church  in  the  West  as  "a 
communion  which  deceives  itself  and  others  with  the 
name  of  True  Reformed  Church,  while  it  is  full  of 
suffocating  gas  which  destroys  all  growth  in  grace," 
and  as  "the  wickedest  ward  in  the  modern  Babylon." 
Rev.  Scholte  had,  since  1840,  been  the  leader  of  pro- 
fessional secessionists  who  believed  that  secession  was 
the  only  means  of  reforming  churches;  he  never  joined 
the  Reformed  Church  in  America,  but  he  was  opposed 
to  seceding  on  points  of  church  government  which  did 
not  touch  fundamental  principles,  as  did  the  Seceders 
of  1857,  and  hence  the  strong  statement  quoted  above. 
Opposed  as  Scholte  was  to  Church  Rules,  he  hated  a 
church  based  on  rules  alone,  as  the  Secession  Church 
in  the  West  appeared  to  be. 

Since  instances  of  the  strictness  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  of  eighty  years  ago  are  numerous  in 
the  columns  of  The  Intelligencer,  let  it  suffice  to  call 
attention  to  the  criticism  of  that  paper  on  Zachary 
Taylor,  who  as  president-elect,  while  on  his  way  to 
Washington,  traveled  on  Sunday.  The  Intelligencer 
was  exceedingly  rough  in  its  strictures  on  him,  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  conclude  with — "Polk  never  did 
this."  In  spite  of  the  Whig  leanings  of  that  paper, 
the  editors  did  not  spare  even  Taylor  when  Sabbath 
observance  was  at  stake. 

A  fair  sample  of  the  Holland  language  used  by  the 
Eastern  Reformed  people  until  a  half  century  ago  is 
found  in  Rev.  Murdock's  "Dutch  Dominie  of  the 
Catskills,"  published  in  1862.  The  hero  of  the  book  is 
one  of  Murdock's  predecessors  in  the  Catskill  Re- 
formed Church,  Rev.  Schunneman,  who  was  the  great 
patriot  of  that  region  during  the  Revolutionary  War, 
•and  especially  during  the  Brant  raid  of  1780.  The 
Dutch  used  in  this  volume  is  surely  the  Staten  Bijbel 


REV.  G.  VANDER  MEULEN 


308  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Dutch.  As  is  the  case  in  South  Africa  today,  the  re- 
markable vitality  and  tenacity  of  the  Dutch  language 
in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  was  based  on  the  fact 
that  it  was  so  long  the  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  lan- 
guage of  the  people.  If  the  western  people  do  half  as 
well  in  retaining  familiarity  with  the  Holland  tongue 
as  the  East  did,  they  will  do  well.  Dr.  Murdock,  be  it 
said  in  passing,  expresses  what  has  been  mentioned  in 
an  earlier  chapter,  when  he  wrote,  "The  whole  colony 
of  New  York  was  in  the  hands  of  these  Dominies  [dur- 
ing the  Revolutionary  War] ,  and  it  is  praise  enough  to 
their  memories  that  that  portion  of  the  new  states 
came  out  of  that  great  struggle  as  honorably  as  Massa- 
chusetts, whose  speeches  ring  like  the  bell  of  Old  South, 
in  Boston,  Traise  be  to  me !  Praise  be  to  me !' " — 
Dutch  Dominie  of  the  Catskills,  p.  288. 

There  have  been  times  in  the  history  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  when  there  were  too  many 
vacant  churches,  and  when  religious  instruction  was 
neglected,  as  at  some  places  during  1700-1780;  but  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  there  ever  was  such  neglect 
as  in  the  Netherlands  from  1795-1830.  The  Ameri- 
can Church  made  remarkable  progress  after  the  Revo- 
lution, while  the  failure  to  harmonize  among  the 
Seceders  in  Holland,  after  1835,  is  directly  traceable  to 
the  terrible  neglect  of  proper  instruction.  That  the 
efforts  for  extension  in  the  Western  fields  of  the  Amer- 
ican Reformed  Church  were  not  so  successful  as  those 
of  other  churches,  is  attributed  to  the  fact  that  those 
of  her  members  who  moved  west  were  too  few  in  num- 
ber at  each  place,  as  already  stated  above.  The  min- 
utes of  the  True  Reformed  Dutch,  or  Secession, 
Church  of  the  East,  for  the  year  1850,  speak  of  her 
losses  by  emigration,  and  of  intentions  to  follow  the 
emigrants;  but  so  difficult  was  the  problem,  that  the 
latter  Church  failed  in  this  entirely.  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  force  in  the  slurs  and  criticisms  indulged  in  by 
the  Western  Seceders  on  this  score. 

Today  it  is  also  being  lost  sight  of  that,  long  before 
Van  Raalte  and  Scholte  landed  in  America,  the  mis- 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      309 

sionary  spirit  was  the  dominant  passion  of  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  in  the  East.  It  is  true  that 
Van  Raalte  and  Van  der  Meulen  both  were  strongly 
imbued  with  this  spirit,  but  their  people  were  not. 
Before  1847  the  reports  from  Borneo  and  Amoy  and 
India  stirred  the  Eastern  Church  into  a  fever  heat, 
and  the  Intelligencer  was  eloquent  with  missionary 
fervor.  Van  Raalte  and  the  other  leaders  caught  the 
spirit  from  the  East,  and  Van  Vleck  and  Phelps  fanned 
the  flames  still  further.  And,  when  the  keel  of  that 
mission  ship  was  laid  on  the  shores  of  Black  Lake  in 
1864,  the  spirit  of  John  Van  Vleck  was  regnant,  while 
Philip  Phelps  was  the  main  originator  of  the  enter- 
prise. The  whole  atmosphere  was  that  of  the  East. 
John  V.  N.  Talmage,  from  Amoy,  was  present  at  the 
laying  of  that  keel ;  and,  all  the  other  missionaries  of 
the  Church  visited  the  churches  in  the  West  regularly. 
Dr.  Van  Raalte,  from  1847  on,  distributed  thousands 
of  the  leaflets  and  missionary  pamphlets  furnished  by 
the  East,  and  the  missionary  zeal  of  the  New  York 
and  Jersey  churches  ran  over  and  into  the  Colonial 
Churches. 

And,  further,  were  Abel  T.  Stewart,  Van  Vleck, 
Phelps  and  Chrispell — all  eastern  men — not  strictly 
Reformed?  Did  not  Dr.  Chrispell's  preaching  the  old 
doctrines  so  strongly  lead  to  a  break  in  Hope  Church, 
and  to  the  consequent  establishment  of  the  Methodist 
Church  at  Holland,  Mich.  ?  Weaknesses  there  were  in 
the  Eastern  Church,  and  the  influences  from  without 
were  exceedingly  inimical  to  Calvinistic  doctrine;  but 
most  of  the  complaints  heard  in  the  West  were  based 
on  differences  between  the  American  and  Dutch  ways 
of  worship,  differences  of  no  real  importance.  The 
doctrinal  differences  resolve  themselves  into  mere  di- 
vergence of  opinion  as  to  emphasizing  the  doctrines  of 
election  or  that  of  human  responsibility.  If  the  East 
deviated  from  the  old  landmarks  in  one  direction,  the 
Western  Hollander  who  seceded  deviated  as  much  in 
the  other  direction,  while  in  the  domain  of  real  Re- 


310  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

formed  polity,  those  Western  Seceders  were  absolutely 
groping  in  the  dark. 

Meanwhile,  the  Eastern  Reformed  churches  fought 
a  great  fight  for  existence  in  the  face  of  the  greatest 
foreign  incursion  ever  experienced  in  America.  Hordes 
of  Italians  and  other  foreigners,  frugal  and  industri- 
ous races,  were  and  are  supplanting  the  old  stock  in 
the  Hudson  region  and  in  New  Jersey,  and  that  the 
Reformed  strongholds  there  were  not  all  overturned 
is  miraculous.  And  still  the  fight  continues.  And 
let  us  not  deceive  ourselves.  The  same  fight  is  begin- 
ning to  face  the  Western  churches,  where  in  the  cities 
the  same  elements  are  jostling  and  crowding  around. 

This  trend  of  affairs  was  visible  in  the  East  from 
the  beginning,  and  the  leaders  of  the  immigration, 
such  as  Van  Raalte  and  Scholte,  saw  it.  Is  it  so  profit- 
able then  to  divide  and  rule  for  a  while,  as  secession- 
ists seem  to  desire,  to  be  finally  submerged  on  account 
of  the  lack  of  union  among  people  of  the  Reformed 
persuasion?  Years  ago, — a  hundred  years  or  so, — ^the 
spires  of  Reformed  Churches  dominated  the  landscape 
around  New  York  City.  The  most  conspicuous  mark 
on  the  Jersey  shore,  visible  from  Battery  Place,  were 
the  white  walls  and  steeple  of  Bergen  Church.  In 
Brooklyn,  and  farther  back  on  Long  Island,  were  the 
Flatbush,  Jamaica,  and  other  Reformed  churches;  to 
the  north  on  both  sides  of  the  Hudson  and  Mohawk 
rose  the  steeples  of  Reformed  churches  in  almost 
every  village  and  city.  From  the  Catskills  could  be 
seen  the  spires  of  Reformed  churches  at  Schenectady, 
Albany,  Eangston,  Poughkeepsie,  Fonda,  Schoharie 
and  Amsterdam.  The  Wallkill  and  Hackensack  regions 
were  dotted  with  Reformed  churches,  Staten  Island  had 
several,  and  the  Garden  of  the  Dutch  Church  was  in 
Somerset  and  Middlesex  Counties,  New  Jersey.  There 
stood  those  Reformed  forts,  within  sight  of  Old  Nassau 
Hall  at  Princeton,  and  stretching  to  the  northeast, 
heavily  reinforced  at  the  center  by  the  New  York, 
Brooklyn,  and  the  Jersey  Bergen   County  churches, 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS      311 

thence  along  the  Hudson  and  Mohawk  far  to  the  north 
and  west  to  the  lake  region  of  western  New  York. 
There  were  these  Reformed  congregations  like  a  large 
semi-circular  breastwork,  protecting  the  West  from  the 
hordes  of  rationalism.  And  well  did  they  maintain 
the  heavy  cannonade  of  a  hundred  years  ago.  The 
General  Synod  stood  firm  against  all  extremes,  and  like 
"the  old  Continentals,  in  their  ragged  regimentals, 
yielding  not."  And  it  is  to  the  credit  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church  that  she  had  the  grit  and  determination 
to  destroy  the  Antinomian  heresies  of  Fraeligh  and 
others  in  her  own  ranks,  and  so  curbed  the  rank  spirit 
of  sectarianism.  That  same  semi-circular  breastwork 
exists  today.  Some  of  those  churches  have  disapn 
peared,  while  others  arose  in  a  maze  of  churches  of 
other  denominations;  and  the  situation  confronting 
the  Eastern  Reformed  Church  since  1800  should  not 
be  forgotten  by  critics. 

For  two  centuries  the  Eastern  Church  had  fought 
to  retain  the  old  language  of  Holland.  In  1750  she 
split  in  two  on  the  question  of  Holland-worship.  In 
the  articles  of  Union  of  1771  she  said,  "To  preserve,  in 
the  best  possible  manner,  the  bond  of  union  with  our 
highly  esteemed  mother  church  (which  we  greatly  de- 
sire), there  shall,  first,  be  sent  every  year  a  complete 
copy  of  all  acts  of  our  General  Assembly,  signed  by  the 
Praesis  and  Scriba  for  the  time  being,  to  the  Classis 
of  Amsterdam,  as  duly  named  by  the  Synod  of  North 
Holland  for  that  purpose," — Article  XXII.  After  the 
independence  of  the  Church  in  1792,  and  after  the 
downfall  of  Napoleon  and  Holland's  restoration,  she 
sought  to  restore  the  close  connection  with  the  old 
Mother  Country,  but  found  her  ecclesiastical  mother 
in  great  trouble.  She  deplored  the  declension  of  the 
old  church  in  1830,  and  in  1838,  years  before  she  could 
know  of  the  immigration  of  1847,  conducted  a  great 
debate  in  her  General  Synod  about  protesting  the  acts 
of  Holland  against  the  Seceders — a  matter  on  which 
action  was  deferred  on  account  of  the  dangerous  sit- 


312  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

uation  of  her  own  missionaries  in  Dutch  Borneo.  The 
records  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  eighty  years 
ago  are  replete  with  expressions  of  concern  about  the 
deplorable  condition  of  the  mother  church;  and  think 
of  that  little  American  Dutch  Church  sending  in  1836, 
at  great  expense,  five  or  more  missionaries,  to  the 
colonies  of  Holland,  and  seriously  considering  the  mat- 
ter of  sending  some  of  her  own  Dutch-speaking  min- 
isters to  old  Holland  as  missionaries ;  and  finally  break- 
ing off  all  connection  with  the  Mother  Church  and  tak- 
ing sides  with  the  Seceders  cast  out  by  her,  and  form- 
ing Emigration  Aid  Associations  months  before  Van 
Raalte  and  Scholte  landed  on  American  soil.  It  was 
love  for  the  old  doctrines  that  actuated  the  Eastern 
people  to  take  the  side  of  the  Holland  emigrants,  and 
because  they  had  suffered  for  that  cause,  did  the  Gen- 
eral Synod  speak  so  hightly  of  the  Holland  emigrants 
of  1847. 

But  what  is  strange  is  that  after  the  Holland  immi- 
grants had  been  located  in  Michigan  and  the  West  less 
than  ten  years,  the  extremists  among  them  took  up 
the  arguments  of  Fraeligh,  and  mixed  them  with  cer- 
tain extreme  views  from  Holland,  and  by  1857  had  dis- 
covered that  the  orthodoxy  of  one's  faith  should  be 
seen  through  the  holiness,  not  of  doctrine  and  life,  but 
of  Church  Rules  as  written  in  1619 ;  and  this  they  did 
regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  Seceders  in  the  Nether- 
lands had  adopted,  in  1840,  the  whole  body  of  Church 
Rules,  enacted  from  1568  to  1619  and  later,  and  they 
did  this  also  without  a  knowledge  of  the  disgraceful 
failure  which  overcame  the  Secession  of  1822  in  1828- 
29.  The  Western  Seceders  of  1857  were  an  advance  on 
the  wild  secession  extremists  of  Holland  and  Fraeligh 
alike,  for  they  seceded  on  "six  points,"  as  formulated 
by  the  Graafschap,  Mich.,  church,  in  April,  1857,  every 
one  of  which  was  reducible  to  a  mere  question  of 
Church  Orders  or  Rules,  without  involving  directly  a 
single  doctrinal  point.  And,  they  seceded  "from  all 
other  Protestant  denominations,"  and  from  the  Re- 
formed Dutch  Church  because  the  latter,  to  a  certain 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS       313 

extent,  recognized  and  associated  with  such  other  de- 
nominations. The  Seceders  of  1857  really  broke  away 
on  points,  almost  every  one  of  which  was  subsequently 
by  their  own  acts  and  conduct  repudiated,  so  that  their 
accusations  have  been  turned  into  marks  of  honor  in 
the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  as  will  appear  later.  And 
while  the  Seceders  in  the  woods  of  Michigan  were,  in 
1857,  seceding  because  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
co-operated  in  foreign  missions  with  two  other  de- 
nominations, and  was  therefore  a  false  church,  the 
latter  church  established  her  own  foreign  missionary 
department  in  the  great  synod  of  1857,  at  Ithaca,  N. 
Y., — a  synod  of  which  Dr.  Isaac  Ferris  wrote  as  fol- 
lows :  "In  1857  the  Synod  met  at  Ithaca,  and  a  most 
remarkable  synod  it  was.  According  to  the  testimony 
of  all  who  were  present,  the  Spirit  of  God  unusually 
manifested  His  gracious  presence.  A  venerable  min- 
ister on  his  return  remarked,  *It  was  like  heaven  upon 
earth.'  That  synod,  under  the  extraordinary  sense  of 
the  Divine  presence  and  unction,  judged  the  time  had 
arrived  for  the  Church  to  take  the  responsibility  of 
supporting  its  foreign  missionary  work  upon  itself." 
Van  Raalte  was  present  when  the  Synod  concluded  to 
take  sole  charge  of  her  own  missions,  and  The  Intel- 
ligencer said  he  spoke  long  and  eloquently  to  the  Synod. 
His  topic  seems  to  have  been,  however,  the  pressing 
need  of  a  suitable  harbor  for  the  "Colony,"  and  the 
growing  importance  of  the  educational  concerns  of  the 
Hollanders  in  the  West. 

In  1879,  a  certain  Rev.  R.  T.  Kuiper  came  from  the 
Netherlands  to  the  Seceder  Church  at  Graafschap, 
Mich.,  and  wrote  two  pamphlets,  primarily  for  cir- 
culation in  the  Old  Country.  Without  betraying  the 
least  vestige  of  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  and  her  relations  to  and  ef- 
forts for  the  old  Church  of  Holland,  and  later  for  the 
Seceder  immigrants,  this  writer  accuses  the  Reformed 
Church  of  "not  bothering  herself"  about  the  old 
Mother  Church.  History  shows  Rev.  Kuiper  did  not 
know  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  his  Een  Tijd' 


314  LANDMARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

woord  and  Stem  TJit  Amerika,  still  even  quoted  as  au- 
thorities, are  devoid  of  historical  merit ;  they  are 
samples  of  the  spirit  of  the  Michigan  Seceders,  who 
did  not  "bother  about"  the  old  Mother  Church,  but 
even  seceded  from,  and  excommunicated,  the  Ameri- 
can representative  and  offshoot  of  the  churches  of 
Dort,  which  preserved  the  traditions  and  doctrines  and 
polity  of  Dort  better  than  those  Seceders  themselves 
did.  In  fact,  the  way  those  Seceders  of  the  West,  with 
their  appeals  to  Reformed  doctrine,  their  insistence 
on  the  usages  and  customs  of  old  Holland,  and  their 
refusal  to  recognize  the  fact  that  they  lived  in  Amer- 
ica, treated  the  brethren  of  the  East,  is  an  enigma. 
With  loud  acclaim  of  Holland  and  her  marvelous  his- 
tory, civil  and  ecclesiastical,  those  Seceders  cursed  the 
Eastern  churches  as  false  churches,  instead  of  giving 
them  praise  for  the  tenacity  with  which  they  had  main- 
tained the  Dutch  language,  for  their  vast  collection 
of  theological  literature  of  the  era  of  Dort,  and  for 
preserving  the  essence  of  the  Calvinistic  system  of  doc- 
trine, in  the  midst  of  the  greatest  obstacles.  The 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  with  her  schools  in  deadly 
competition  with  larger  schools,  her  papers  in  com- 
petition with  larger  papers,  and  her  churches  in  their 
own  homes  stormed  by  other  and  larger  denomina- 
tions, with  hordes  of  foreigners  crowding  on  all  sides 
of  her,  while  she  faithfully  retained  the  distinctive 
features  of  the  Reformation  and  of  Calvinistic  truth, 
with  a  love  for  the  truly  heroic  of  old  Holland  and  her 
Martyr  Church, — really,  this  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
deserved  the  praise  given  her  by  Van  Raalte  and  Van 
der  Meulen,  when  in  the  Classes  of  1850-57,  they  told 
the  Hollanders  that  "those  Eastern  Churches  make  us 
ashamed  of  ourselves  by  their  good  example  and  Chris- 
tian charity." 

Some  of  the  Holland  immigrants  of  1847,  and  later, 
came  from  the  excitement  and  confusion  of  the  Seces- 
sion in  Holland,  and  in  their  ignorance  of  the  real 
nature  of  the  Christian  Church,  they  thought  the  Lord 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS       315 

spoke  through  them  only.     They  spoke  of  reforming 
the  church  in  1857,  and  if  their  words  had  been  the 
equivalent  of  deeds,  all  would  have  been  well ;  but  they 
did  not  understand  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
had  existed  in  America  for  two  centuries  and  more, 
and  had  not  assumed  the  exact  attitude  which  the  Se- 
ceders  in  the  Netherlands  had  been  obliged  to  take 
against  the  State  Church.     Dr.  Van  Raalte  and  the 
other  leaders  understood  thoroughly  that  the  unity  of 
the  Christian  Church  is  not  destroyed  by  difference  of 
geography,  language,  or  government,  and  that  it  was 
necessary  to  adopt  American  ways  here  to  a  large  ex- 
tent.   In  the  last  analysis,  the  break  among  the  West- 
ern Hollanders  in  1857,  was  a  revolt  against  the  Amer- 
icanization    favored     by     Van  Raalte    and    Van  der 
Meulen,  in  church  life  and  also  in  every  day  concerns. 
The  one-sided  stories  of  heterodoxy  in  the  East  spread 
by  Fraeligh's  church,  coupled  with  a  lack  of  knowledge 
of  the. frightful  lapse  of  those  Eastern  Antinomians, 
had  some  effect,  but  the  main  arguments  in  the  West, 
from  1852  till  1856,  were  against  the  attitude  assumed 
by  the  Classis  of  Holland  on  matters  of  Festival-days, 
Communion,  Church  Rules,  and  the  like.     This  atti- 
tude was  substantially  that  of  the  Eastern  Church. 
And  when,  in  1856,  the  Fraeligh  arguments  of  1822-24 
reached  the  Colony,  there  was  a  little  shift,  which  in 
later  years  was  magnified  into  the  cause  of  secession, 
namely  Van  Raalte's  and  the  Classis  of  Holland's  de- 
fense of,  and  refusal  to  break  with,  the  Church  of 
Wyckoff,  De  Witt,  Bethune     and    Livingston.       Van 
Raalte,  Van  der  Meulen,  Bolks  and  Ypma  and  their 
followers  believed,  seventy  years  ago    (what  is  now 
admitted  by  the  Secession   Church  of  the  West,  al- 
though she  owes  her  origin  to  the  opposite  idea)  that 
it  was  error  and  heterodoxy  to  secede  "from  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church  and  all  other  Protestant  denomina- 
tions," as  was  done  in  1857.    Van  Raalte  and  the  other 
leaders  believed,  in  1850,  that  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  spoke  aright,  when  she  declared  in  the  intro- 
duction to  her  constitution  in  1792,  "The  Church  is  a 


316  LANDAIARKS      OF      THE      REFORMED      FATHERS 

Society  wholly  distinct  in  its  principles,  laws  and  end, 
from  any  which  men  have  ever  instituted  for  civil  pur- 
poses. It  consists  of  all,  in  every  age  and  place,  who 
are  chosen,  effectually  called,  and  united  by  faith  to 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  different  dispensations, 
either  before  or  since  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  have 
made  no  essential  change  in  the  benefits  of  the  ever- 
lasting Covenant;  nor  do  the  various  denominations 
or  descriptions  of  particular  churches,  under  which, 
from  many  unavoidable  circumstances  of  language, 
nation,  or  other  causes  of  distinction,  believers  are 
classed,  effect  any  schism  in  the  body,  or  destroy  the 
communion  of  saints." 

The  above  doctrine  is  undeniably  New  Testament 
logic,  well  understood  by  Van  Raalte  and  the  vast 
majority  of  the  colonists  of  1847;  for  in  1849  they 
already  talked  about  "God's  children  of  every  denomi- 
nation are  dear  to  us."  They  also  understood  that  the 
only  Forms  of  Concord  which  unified  Reformed  people 
were  the  Articles  of  Faith,  the  Catechism,  and  the 
Canons  of  Dort,  and  that  Church  communion  or  con- 
nection is  based  thereon  subordinate  to  the  Scriptures 
only.  They  also  knew,  what  a  few  among  them  in 
1857  and  even  earlier  did  not  seem  to  know,  that  to 
make  the  sacred  duty  of  joining  or  seceding  from  a 
church  dependent  upon  the  old-fashioned  high  pulpit, 
the  voorlezer,  the  precentor,  exclusive  use  of  psalms, 
preaching  from  the  catechism,  feast-days,  differences 
due  to  the  habits,  customs,  and  usages  of  old  Holland, 
and  Church  Rules,  is  not  Reformed,  but  Secession  doc- 
trine. And  hence,  on  the  strength  of  the  fact  that  the 
Netherlands  Confession,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and 
Compendium,  and  the  Canons  of  Dort,  were  the  Forms 
of  Concord  in  the  old  churches  of  Holland  and  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  the  East,  they  said  also, 
in  1849,  that  "since  our  feet  first  pressed  the  soil  of 
the  New  World,  we  have  never  considered  ourselves 
other  than  a  part  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church." 

In  1850,  the  Classis  of  Holland  applied  for  per- 
mission to  send  her  delegates  to  the  assemblies  of  the 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS        317 

Reformed  Dutch  Church  as  the  expression  of  her  unity 
with  that  church,  and  the  General  Synod  simply  de- 
clared that  unity  which  had  already  existed  by  virtue 
of  the  Forms  of  Concord. 

The  writer  well  remembers  that  his  father,  who 
was  editor  of  De  Hollander  during  the  dark  days  of 
the  Civil  War,  used  to  tell  of  Dr.  Van  Raalte's  visits 
to  his  house,  when  they  expected  further  news  of  some 
battle  or  other  important  event.  In  1865,  after  they 
heard  of  Lincoln's  assassination,  Van  Raalte  called  in 
the  evening,  and  told  once  more  the  story  of  his  recep- 
tion by  the  Reformed  brethren  in  New  York,  and  of 
his  many  trips  out  East,  and  of  how  delighted  he  was 
when  De  Witt  and  Wyckoff  unfolded  to  him  the  his- 
tory of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  in  America  the 
first  time  in  1846,  even  the  struggle  against  Labadists 
of  1822.  Van  Raalte  of  course  classed  this  movement 
of  1822  as  something  like  the  methods  of  some  of  the 
extreme  Seceders  in  Holland.  However,  he  warmed 
up  on  the  subject  in  a  two  hours'  talk  about  the  East- 
ern Church,  and  her  rigid  old  elders  and  orthodox 
ways.  He  had  found  the  Dutch  language  understood 
by  the  Eastern  Church,  and  even  her  cemeteries  and 
churches  suggested  the  Holland  Church  of  the  times 
of  Dort.  Van  Raalte's  sentiments  of  that  evening 
have  been  rather  well  expressed  in  the  quotation  Dr. 
Messier  employs  on  p.  139  of  his  "Forty  years  at 
Raritan" : 

"Church  of  my  sires,  my  love  to  thee. 
Was  nurtured  in  my  infancy; 
And  now  maturer  thoughts  approve 
The  object  of  that  early  love. 
Linked  to  my  soul  with  hooks  of  steel, 
By  all  I  say,  and  do,  and  feel; 
By  records  that  refresh  my  eye, 
In  the  rich  page  of  memory; 
By  blessings  at  thine  altars  given, 


318  LANDMARKS       OF       THE       REFORMED       FATHERS 

By  scenes  which  lift  the  soul  to  heaven ; 
By  monuments  that  humbly  rise, 
Memorials  of  the  good  and  wise; 
By  graves  forever  sad  and  dear, 
Still  reeking  with  my  constant  tears; 
Where  those  in  honored  slumber  lie, 
Whose  deaths  have  taught  me  how  to  die. 
And  shall  I  not  with  all  my  powers. 
Watch  round  thy  venerable  towers? 
And  can  I  bid  the  pilgrim  flee 
To  holier  refuge  than  to  thee? 
Church  of  my  sires,  my  heart's  best  home! 
From  thee  I  cannot,  will  not  roam!" 

Hardly  a  word  has  been  said  in  this  series  of  pap- 
ers about  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  since  1857,  for 
the  reason  that  the  character  of  that  Church  as  it  ex- 
isted before  1857  only  is  involved  in  the  controversy 
with  the  men  of  1857  in  the  West.  The  Church  of 
Van  Buren,  the  Roosevelts.  Sherman  and  Hobart,  and 
what  is  of  deeper  significance,  the  Church  of  Theodore 
Frelinghuysen,  Hasbrouck,  Campbell,  Livingston,  Ro- 
meyn,  Bethune,  the  Talmages  of  Bound  Brook, — T. 
De  Witt,  John  and  the  rest  of  them, — of  Van  Har- 
lingen,  Thos.  De  Witt,  Wyckoff,  Berg,  Ferris,  Verbeck, 
and  Woodbridge,  has  a  record  which  speaks  for  itself. 
We  know  the  flaws  and  blemishes  of  the  Colonial 
period,  but  these  were  no  worse  than  those  which 
checkered  the  career  of  the  Church  in  Holland,  dur- 
ing the  same  time,  or  than  those  which  marked  the 
religious  life  of  the  Hollanders  the  first  forty  years  or 
more  of  their  sojourn  in  America.  Able  hands  have 
written  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Church,  since 
1857,  high  on  the  walls  of  fame,  both  at  home  in  the 
Hudson,  Mohawk,  and  Raritan  regions,  and  also  in 
glowing  letters  on  the  mission  battlefields  of  the  orient. 


THE    REF.    CHURCH    AHEAD    OF    THE    HOLLANDERS        319 

What  has  been  written  in  these  papers  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  of  1850  was 
the  historical  continuation  of  the  real  old  Reformed 
Church  of  the  era  of  Dort,  comparatively  unsullied  by 
the  waves  of  European  or  New  England  rationalism, 
of  Fraeligh's  Antinomian  heresies,  and  of  the  unbal- 
anced doctrines  and  extravagances  of  the  Dutch  Seces- 
sion of  eighty  years  ago — a  Church,  from  which  the 
secession  of  the  Western  Hollanders  in  1857  proved  to 
be  an  illegal,  unscriptural,  and  un-Reformed  schism, 
based,  not  indeed  entirely  on  wrong  intentions,  but  on 
ignorance  of  the  distinctive  features  of  Reformed 
Churches. 


DATE  DUE                           ' 

2j|«tdC:.i«t;&3«(b| 

k.. 

^ 

jte^ 

jmKsmmmmr 

^' 

^^^-^'^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

